PA  8518  . S64  1923  c.l 
Smith,  Preserved,  1880-1941. 
Erasmus 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/erasmusstudyofhi00smit_0 


\ 


/ 


ERASMUS 


DESIDERIUS  ERASMUS  OF  ROTTERDAM 
Sketch  made  by  Albert  Diirer  in  1520.  Original  in  Bonnat  Collection 

at  Paris 


f 


ERASMUS 


A  Study  of  His  Life,  Ideals 
and  Place  in  History 


By 

PRESERVED  SMITH,  Ph.D.,  Litt.D. 


Professor  of  History  in  Cornell  University 


III  ustrated 


HARPER  ©  BROTHERS,  PUBLISHERS 
NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 


MCMXXIII 


ERASMUS 

Copyright,  1923 
By  Harper  &  Brothers 
Printed  in  the  U.S.A. 

First  Edition 


E-X 


TO 

MY  WIFE 

WITH  LOVE  AND  HOMAGE 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  Apprentice  Years .  i 


The  Renaissance  represented  by  Erasmus.  His  birth,  1469. 
Schooling  at  Deventer.  Reception  as  an  Austin  Canon  at  Steyn. 
Love  for  the  classics.  Painting.  The  Burgundian  Court.  The 
University  of  Paris.  Revolt  from  scholasticism.  Student  life. 
Patrons. 


II.  The  Revival  of  Antiquity .  33 

The  classics.  The  Adages.  Greek.  Panegyric  of  Philip.  The 
“philosophy  of  Christ.”  Jean  Vitrier.  Enchiridion  Militis 
Christiani. 

III.  English  Friends .  59 


First  visit  to  England,  1499.  Second  visit,  1505-06.  Third 
sojourn,  1509-14.  Later  visits.  Teaching  at  Cambridge. 
English  benefices.  Pilgrimages  to  Canterbury  and  Walsingham. 
Dispensations  from  the  Pope.  Sir  Thomas  More  and  his  family. 
The  Utopia.  John  Colet. 


IV.  Italy . 101 

The  journey  to  Italy  1506-09.  The  degree  of  Doctor  of  Theology 

at  Turin.  Bologna,  Florence,  Venice.  Aldo.  Padua,  Ferrara, 
Sienna,  Rome,  Naples. 

V.  The  Praise  of  Folly . 117 

Sources.  Character  of  the  satire.  Success.  Julius  excluded 
from  heaven. 

VI.  The  Rhine . 129 


Erasmus’s  fame  in  Germany,  1514.  Hutten.  Reuchlin.  Letters 
of  Obscure  Men.  Travel  on  the  Rhine.  Portraits  by  Matsys, 

Diirer,  and  Holbein.  Holbein’s  illustrations  of  the  Folly  and  the 
Paraphrase  of  Luke.  University  of  Louvain. 

VII.  The  New  Testament . 159 

State  of  biblical  criticism.  Erasmus’s  edition  of  the  Greek  text. 
Criticism,  translation,  exegesis.  Reception  and  influence  of  the 
work.  Paraphrases. 

VIII.  Miscellaneous  Writings . 189 

Editions  of  the  Fathers.  Editions  and  translations  of  the  classics. 
Political  writings.  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Prince.  Repub¬ 
licanism  and  Pacifism.  Epistles. 

IX.  The  Reformation:  The  First  Phase,  1517-21  ....  209 

Erasmus's  preparation  for  the  Protestant  revolt.  His  influence 

on  Luther.  His  welcome  for  the  Theses  on  Indulgences.  Attacks 
on  him  by  the  monks.  His  plan  for  a  court  of  arbitration.  His 
meeting  with  Frederic  the  Wise  at  Cologne.  The  Diet  of  Worms. 
Neutrality  of  Erasmus  resented  by  both  sides.  His  flight  from 
the  Netherlands. 

vii 


Vlll 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

X.  Life  at  Basle,  1521-29 . 257 


Erasmus’s  income,  library,  and  will.  Visits  to  Constance, 
Besan^on,  and  Freiburg  in  the  Breisgau.  Health.  Relations 
with  France  and  England. 

XI.  The  Colloquies  and  other  Pedagogical  Works  .  .  .  286 

The  Colloquies ,  their  origin,  success,  and  teaching.  Textbooks. 
Pronunciation  of  Greek.  Pedagogical  method.  The  Ciceronian. 
Erasmus’s  style. 

XII.  The  Controversy  with  Luther . 320 

Contact  of  the  Renaissance  and  Reformation;  their  common 
origin  and  final  divergence.  Relations  of  Erasmus  and  Luther 
typical  of  this.  The  inevitable  break  precipitated  by  personal 
reasons.  Quarrel  with  Hutten.  The  Free  Will.  Luther’s  reply 

and  Erasmus’s  rejoinders.  The  Diet  of  Augsburg.  Melanchthon. 

XIII.  The  Swiss  Reformation . 372 

Zwingli.  Reform  at  Basle.  Farel.  (Ecolampadius.  Departure 

from  Basle.  Controversies  of  Erasmus  with  the  Catholics. 

The  offer  of  the  Red  Hat. 

XIV.  Last  Years  at  Freiburg  and  Again  at  Basle  ....  404 

Freiburg  in  the  Breisgau.  Cousin.  Last  works.  Correspondence 

with  H.  C.  Agrippa,  De  Pins,  and  Rabelais.  Deaths  of  Fisher 
and  More.  Death  of  Erasmus,  1536. 

XV.  The  Genius  of  Erasmus  and  His  Place  in  History  .  .  421 

His  works  put  on  the  Index  of  Prohibited  Books.  Later  Catholic 
opinion.  Protestant  estimates.  Rationalist  appreciation. 
Character  of  Erasmus.  As  a  representative  of  the  contact  of 


Renaissance  and  Reformation.  As  the  exponent  of  “the 
philosophy  of  Christ.” 

APPENDICES 

I.  The  Year  of  Erasmus’s  Birth . 445 

II.  The  Correspondence  of  Erasmus  and  De  Pins:  Six  Un¬ 

published  Letters . 447 

III.  Unpublished  Poems  of  Erasmus  and  Gaguin . 453 

IV.  Bibliography . 459 

Addenda  et  Corrigenda . 467 

Index . 469 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Desiderius  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam . Frontispiece 

Louvain  in  the  Sixteenth  Century . Facing  p.  50 

Erasmus  (woodcut  made  by  Albert  Diirer) . “  150 

Albert  of  Hohenzollern,  Cardinal  Archbishop  Elector 

of  Mainz . “  226 

Antwerp  in  1520 . “  246 

The  Old  University  Buildings  at  Freiburg  in  the  Breisgau  “  404 

Viglius  van  Zuichem . “  410 

Erasmus  (from  a  painting  by  Holbein) . “  422 


IX 


PREFACE 


Perhaps  the  best  way  to  explain  the  raison  d'etre  of  this 
work  is  to  set  forth  the  phases  through  which  the  com¬ 
position  has  passed.  Lectures  given  at  Amherst  College 
in  the  winter  of  1912-13  laid  the  foundations.  At  that 
time  I  was  attracted  to  the  subject  by  the  large  amount 
of  new  materials  which  had  appeared  very  recently. 
The  masterly  edition  of  the  epistles  by  Percy  Stafford 
Allen  and  the  publication  of  many  unknown  or  inac¬ 
cessible  letters  by  J.  Forstemann,  O.  Gunther,  L.  K. 
Enthoven,  and  other  scholars,  have  greatly  added  to 
our  knowledge  of  Erasmus’s  life.  The  Bibliotheca  Eras - 
miana ,  now  in  course  of  publication,  has  opened  a  mine 
of  information  on  many  of  the  humanist’s  works.  On 
various  phases  of  his  career  and  genius  much  new  light 
has  been  cast  by  the  labors  of  Kalkoff,  Mestwerdt, 
Humbert,  Zickendraht,  Woodward,  and  Nichols. 

Under  the  pressure  of  other  labors  the  biography 
was  laid  aside  for  several  years.  When  I  took  it  up 
again,  and  studied  it  more  deeply,  I  discovered  in 
Erasmus  the  champion,  in  his  own  day,  of  that  “un- 
dogmatic  Christianity”  now  first  coming  to  its  own 
four  hundred  years  after  he  proclaimed  it.  One  must 
not  exaggerate,  nor  wrench  historical  facts  to  precon¬ 
ceived  ideas;  it  would  be  impossible  to  claim  that  the 
humanist  felt  toward  dogma  and  ritual  exactly  as  the 
most  rational  Christian  at  present  feels.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  true  that,  relatively,  he  neglected  doctrine  and 
ceremony  and  placed  the  emphasis  on  the  ethical  and 
the  reasonable.  His  peculiar  note,  much  more  striking 
then  than  it  would  be  now,  was  to  reconcile  the  claims 
of  piety  with  those  of  reason,  to  discountenance  obscur¬ 
antism,  while  cherishing  morality.  No  writer  before 


xi 


PREFACE 


•  • 

Xll 

Voltaire  has  left  behind  him  such  a  wreck  of  super¬ 
stitions;  few  writers  since  the  last  Evangelists  have 
bequeathed  to  posterity  so  much  of  ethical  value.  It 
is  this  combination  of  reason  and  morality  in  religion 
that  makes  Erasmus  the  forerunner  and  exponent  of 
that  type  of  Christianity  at  present  prevalent  among 
large  circles  of  our  cultivated  classes. 

When  I  gave  the  manuscript  its  third  and  final  revision, 
I  had  recently  written  a  larger  history  of  the  Reformation 
and  had  given  much  thought  to  the  various  philosophical 
problems  connected  with  it,  among  which  none  is  deeper 
or  more  difficult  than  that  of  the  relation  of  the  Re¬ 
formation  to  the  Renaissance.  Were  the  two  opposed 
or  allied  movements?  Why  did  the  humanists  after 
preparing  the  way  for  the  Reformers,  turn  against  them? 
I  soon  learned  that  the  life  of  Erasmus  would  cast  more 
light  upon  this  problem  than  that  of  any  other  man, 
for  he  typified  and  represented,  more  than  did  any  other 
man,  the  evolution  of  humanism  in  its  contact  with 
the  Reformation;  first  he  prepared  the  way  for  it,  then 
he  welcomed  it,  and  finally  repudiated  it.  A  solution 
of  the  problem  why  he  did  this,  and  to  some  extent 
of  the  larger  problem  of  the  contact  of  the  two  move¬ 
ments,  is  here  presented.  Furthermore,  Erasmus’s 
particular  task,  that  of  synthesizing  the  two  diverse 
currents  flowing  from  Christian  and  from  pagan  an¬ 
tiquity,  is  freshly  evaluated. 

In  fine,  three  tasks  have  been  here  attempted — 
first,  to  sum  up  many  new  facts  and  details  on  the  life 
of  Erasmus;  secondly,  to  exhibit  the  genius  of  his 
rational  piety;  and  thirdly,  to  explain,  by  the  example 
of  his  career,  the  intricate  relations  of  Renaissance 
and  Reformation. 

My  obligations  to  helpers  have  been  very  great.  I 
am  indebted  to  Dr.  P.  S.  Allen  for  occasional  informa¬ 
tion  and  for  keeping  me  au  courant  of  his  own  work; 
to  that  generous  patron  of  learning,  Mr.  George  Arthur 
Plimpton,  for  the  use  of  his  splendid  library  of  rare 


ERASMUS 


•  •  • 
Xlll 

books,  including  some  valuable  Erasmiana;  to  Prof.  H. 
Carrington  Lancaster,  for  transcribing  for  me  some 
letters  from  the  Bellaria  Epistolarum  Des.  Erasmi 
Roterodami  et  Ambrosii  Palargi ,  published  at  Cologne, 
1539,  out  of  the  copy  of  that  rare  work  at  the  Bodleian. 
For  information  about  a  manuscript  containing  unpub¬ 
lished  Erasmus  letters  at  Nimes  I  am  obliged  to  Prof. 
John  Lawrence  Gerig.  Still  more  do  I  owe  to  Prof. 
Louise  Ropes  Loomis.  At  one  time  I  hoped  to  secure 
her  co-operation  in  writing  this  volume,  but,  though 
the  work  was  in  her  possession  for  about  a  year,  she 
found  little  time  to  devote  to  it,  and  actually  wrote  only 
some  eight  or  ten  pages.  As  she  built  on  my  work, 
and  as  I  have  in  turn  remodeled  hers,  it  is  impossible  to 
indicate  her  contribution  more  exactly  than  to  state 
that  most  of  what  is  said  on  the  Adages  in  Chapter  II 
is  from  her  pen.  She  has  also  recently  read  the  first 
half  of  the  manuscript  and  has  given  me  the  benefit 
of  many  corrections  and  suggestions  in  matters  of 
detail.  Most  of  all,  perhaps,  the  book  owes  to  the 
thorough  revision  of  Prof.  George  Lincoln  Burr.  Every 
chapter  now  bears  the  mark  of  his  profound  erudition 
and  keen  insight.  My  wife  has  also  assisted  me  in 
reading  the  proof,  and  has  also  prepared  the  index. 
The  merits  of  the  book  are  due  to  the  co-operation 
of  the  kind  friends  here  warmly  but  inadequately 
thanked;  for  its  faults,  as  well  as  for  the  expression  of 
opinion,  I  alone  bear  the  responsibility. 

Preserved  Smith. 

Cambridge,  Mass. 

July  6,  1922 


f^L-S  iro\4i 

f”  *Ajj  J  t**^l**J$  1  VA4A 


'MyW 


**  fvJpf/r*J*/* 


Autograph  signature  to  a  letter  to  Duke 
George  of  Saxony ,  December  5,  75^2. 
It  reads:  “ Erasmus  Rot.  Serenitati 
tuae  addictissimus  manu  mea  sub¬ 
scrip  si.”  Original  in  Dresden. 


CHAPTER  I 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 

LIKE  all  great  and  complex  movements,  the  Renais- 
j  sance  is  capable  of  interpretation  in  various  ways 
and  from  opposite  standpoints.  When  we  think  of  its 
importance  in  the  preparation  of  our  modern  habit  of 
mind,  we  are  inclined  to  class  it  with  the  great  epochs 
of  advance,  such  as  the  Athenian  Age  and  the  Enlight¬ 
enment.  But  if  we  take  the  testimony  of  its  own  writers 
we  learn  that  its  ideals  were  in  the  past,  a  restoration 
and  not  a  progress.  Its  most  enlightened  champions 
appealed  not  to  reason,  but  to  the  Roman  poets;  not 
to  nature,  but  to  classic  authority.  While  the  glorious 
freedom  of  thought  attained  by  many  of  its  represent¬ 
atives  entitles  it  to  be  regarded  as  an  insurgence  of 
reason,  its  passionate  rebellion  against  the  rationalism  of 
Aristotle  and  Aquinas  forces  us  to  consider  it  an  artistic, 
emotional  reaction  against  reason,  like  the  Romantic 
Movement  of  the  early  nineteenth  century. 

Nor  is  there  any  consensus  of  opinion  as  to  the  re¬ 
lations  of  the  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation.  For 
long  they  were  regarded  as  sisters,  similar  in  origin  and 
analogous  in  result;  emancipations  both,  in  different 
fields  and  with  different  emphases  but  with  a  friendly 
alliance,  so  that  the  elder  sister  prepared  for  the  younger 
and  the  younger  consummated  the  work  of  the  elder. 
But  of  late  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  Reformation 
was  a  reaction  of  backward  minds  against  the  Renais¬ 
sance;  the  different  points  of  view  of  the  two  have  been 
stressed,  and  their  rivalry  and  even  hostility  pointed 
out.  “ Where  the  Reformation  triumphed’" — we  may 
paraphrase  a  famous  saying  of  Erasmus — “the  Renais- 


2 


ERASMUS 


sance  perished”;  and  contrariwise  where  humanism  at¬ 
tained  its  perfect  work  the  Lutheran  gospel  met  with  a 
cold  reception. 

A  part  of  the  confusion  of  thought  on  this  subject 
is  due  to  the  lack  of  a  precise  understanding  of  what  is 
meant  by  the  term  “Renaissance.”  Sometimes  it  is 
made  to  cover  all  the  intellectual  phenomena  of  the 
fourteenth  to  the  sixteenth  century,  and  even  (as  by 
Burckhardt)  extended  to  the  political  development; 
again  it  is  narrowly  restricted  to  the  rebirth  of  en¬ 
thusiasm  for  classical  antiquity.  For  the  sake  of  clarity 
it  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  vast  change  which 
came  over  the  human  spirit  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth 
centuries,  marking  the  transition  from  mediaeval  to 
modern  times,  can  be  analyzed  into  at  least  three  very 
distinct  factors.  In  the  first  place,  there  was  the  Social 
Shift,  manifesting  itself  in  politics  in  the  rise  of  the  na¬ 
tional  state  and  in  economics  in  the  change  from  the 
gild  system  of  production  to  the  capitalistic  method. 
Secondly,  there  was  a  large  number  of  new  Discoveries — 
geographical  exploration,  the  invention  of  printing, 
gunpowder,  glass  lenses,  and  the  compass,  and  the 
revival  of  natural  science  with  Copernicus  and  his 
fellows.  Thirdly,  there  was  the  Rebirth  of  Antiquity, 
manifesting  itself,  according  to  the  view  here  set  forth, 
in  the  Renaissance  and  in  the  Reformation.  All  three 
great  lines  of  progress  interacted,  as  for  example,  na¬ 
tionalism  in  the  rise  of  vernacular  literature,  and  the 
discovery  of  printing  in  the  spread  of  culture,  but  each 
is  separable  in  thought,  and  might  conceivably  have 
acted  independently. 

The  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation  were,  therefore, 
really  one.  The  conscious  opposition  of  the  champions 
of  each,  the  intense  warfare  arising  from  their  propin¬ 
quity  and  concern  with  the  same  interests,  have  con¬ 
cealed  the  real  similarity  of  their  natures,  just  as  the 
warfare  between  Catholics  and  Protestants  has  greatly 
exaggerated  the  popular  estimate  of  their  differences 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


3 


and  obscured  their  numerous  and  fundamental  agree¬ 
ments.  Though  both  Renaissance  and  Reformation, 
by  breaking  down  the  old  barriers  and  by  stimulating 
new  thought  and  claiming  new  freedoms,  did  much  to 
prepare  the  modern  world,  both,  as  the  first  syllable 
of  each  name  indicates,  represented  a  turning  back  to 
the  past,  and  to  about  the  same  period  of  the  past,  the 
first  century  of  the  vulgar  era.  Their  opposition  was  a 
recrudescence  of  the  great  alignment  of  the  first  cen¬ 
turies  of  the  Roman  Empire;  that  between  Christianity 
and  paganism.  Many  of  the  Italian  humanists  repudi¬ 
ated  the  gospel  in  the  name  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
poets  and  philosophers;  most  of  the  Reformers  de¬ 
nounced  or  lamented  the  errors  of  the  heathen  and 
of  their  recent  disciples.  The  versatile  virtuosi  of  Italy 
longed  for  the  return  of  that  golden  age  when  the 
Roman  Capitol  swayed  a  world  of  poetry  and  of  sensual 
pleasure,  when  all  made  for  the  joy  of  living  and  the 
still  greater  joy  of  learning.  The  earnest  Calvinist 
panted  for  the  virtues  and  the  faith  of  an  apostolic  age. 

But,  before  Luther  as  after  him,  there  were  men, 
particularly  among  the  serious-minded  scholars  of  the 
North,  who  felt  the  need  of  amalgamating  both  streams 
of  influence,  the  Latin  and  the  Judaean.  Splendid  was 
the  heritage  of  the  classic  poets  and  philosophers;  pre¬ 
cious  was  the  message  of  the  gospels;  could  not  the 
two  possessions,  so  different  in  spirit  and  in  quality,  be 
united  in  one  rich  synthesis,  cleared  from  the  rust  and 
accretions  of  a  thousand  years,  and  turned  to  the  profit 
of  a  new  civilization?  The  solution  of  this  problem  was 
the  task  consciously  and  conscientiously  set  themselves 
by  the  Transalpine  humanists;  their  success  has  been 
of  high  value  to  their  own  world  and  to  ours,  and  their 
achievement,  though  like  all  great  works  the  product  of 
many  minds,  was  due  more  to  Erasmus  than  to  any 
other  one  man.  He  cared  little  for  the  inventions  and 
discoveries  of  his  age;  he  was  not  even  aware  of  the 
significance  of  the  main  economic  and  political  changes; 


4 


ERASMUS 


but  he  does  represent,  better  than  any  other  one  man,  the 
common  spirit  of  the  Renaissance  and  of  the  Reform¬ 
ation.  His  own  life  typifies  their  similar  origin  and 
their  final  divergence. 

As  the  task  of  reconciling  the  streams  of  ancient 
culture  flowing  from  Judaea  and  from  Athens  was  uni¬ 
versal,  it  was  fitting,  perhaps  necessary,  that  its  master 
should  have  been  born  in  the  most  cosmopolitan  of 
European  states.  In  the  fifteenth  century  the  Nether¬ 
lands  supplied  the  exchange  and  entrepot  not  only  of 
merchandise,  but  of  ideas.  Italian  goods,  material 
and  spiritual,  floated  down  the  Rhine;  those  of  Eng¬ 
land  were  borne  across  the  North  Sea;  those  of  Germany 
and  France  were  close  at  hand.  In  this  focus  arose  a 
man  who  wrote,  “I  wish  to  be  called  a  citizen  of  the 
world,  the  common  friend  of  all  states,  or,  rather,  a 
sojourner  in  all.”1  “That  you  are  very  patriotic,”  he 
said  to  a  French  friend,  “will  be  praised  by  some  and 
easily  forgiven  by  everyone;  but  in  my  opinion  it  is 
more  philosophic  to  treat  men  and  things  as  though 
we  held  this  world  the  common  fatherland  of  all.”2 
Significant  it  seemed  to  him  that  he  was  born  “between 
the  banks  of  the  Rhine” — that  is,  in  the  delta,  as  though 
he  were  intended  to  share  the  culture  of  the  two  great 
bordering  states.  For  at  that  time  the  Dutch  did  not 
think  of  themselves  as  a  separate  nation;  half  of  the 
Burgundian  state  was  German,  the  other  half  French, 
and  those  persons  born  near  the  frontier  might  choose 
to  which  of  the  two  nations  they  belonged.  Erasmus 
preferred  now  one  and  now  the  other  country,3  but  did 
not  care  to  decide  the  matter  finally,  for,  as  he  wrote:4 

I  should  like  not  only  France  and  Germany,  but  all  countries 
and  all  cities  to  claim  Erasmus;  for  it  would  be  a  useful  emulation 
which  would  stimulate  many  to  noble  deeds.  Whether  I  am  a 


1  To  Zwingli,  September  5  (“5  nonas  Septembres”)  1522;  Z.  W.  vii,  ep.  235. 

8  To  Bude,  Allen,  ep.  480. 

3  LB.  x,  1662;  LB.  ep.  803;  Lond.  xii,  43. 

4  To  Peter  Manius,  October  1,  1520,  Allen,  ep.  1147. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


5 


Batavian  I  am  not  sure.  I  cannot  deny  that  I  am  a  Hollander  by 
birth,  from  that  part,  if  one  may  trust  the  maps,  which  borders 
on  France  rather  than  on  Germany,  but  assuredly  from  the  region 
situated  on  the  frontiers  of  France  and  Germany. 

But  though  the  name  Holland  applied  not  to  a  nation, 
as  in  common  speech  it  does  now,  but  merely  to  a 
province,  Erasmus  loved  it  well.  If  at  times  he  expressed 
discontent  with  a  country  which  appreciated  its  own 
son  less  than  did  other  nations,  elsewhere  he  praised 
highly  its  rich  soil,  its  hardy  fishermen,  its  numerous, 
wealthy,  and  cultured  cities,  and  the  humane  and 
intelligent  character  of  the  inhabitants.1.  Holland  was 
then  a  part  of  the  Burgundian  state,  welded  into  a 
powerful  land  by  Philip  the  Good  and  Charles  the  Bold, 
but  with  little  of  the  national  feeling  already  character¬ 
istic  of  the  French,  the  English,  and  the  Germans. 
About  his  birth  and  childhood  in  this  country  Erasmus 
in  after-life  wove  a  web  of  romance  founded  on  fact, 
which  may  be  here  repeated  after  him. 

During  the  last  years  of  Duke  Philip  the  Good  there 
lived  at  Gouda,  a  town  about  twelve  miles  from  Rotter¬ 
dam,  a  man  named  Elias.2  The  Dutch  at  that  time  had 
no  family  names,  but  took  their  surnames  either  from 
the  baptismal  name  of  their  fathers,  or  from  the  town 
where  they  were  born  or  with  which  they  were  later 
connected.  Thus  Adrian  of  Utrecht,  who  became  pope 
in  1522,  was  called  after  the  city  of  his  birth  and,  oc¬ 
casionally,  Rogers,  a  patronymic.  Elias  and  his  wife, 
Catharine,  had  ten  sons,  of  whom  the  youngest  save 
one,  and  the  most  gifted,  was  called  Gerard,  “the 
Beloved.”  With  a  natural  aptitude  for  learning  he 

1  “Auris  Batava,”  Adagia,  LB.  i,  1083  f.  Cf.  L.  Enthoven:  “Erasmus 
Weltbiirger  oder  Patriot?”  Neue  Jahrbiicher  fur  das  Klassische  Altertum , 
etc.,  xxix,  205. 

2  On  Erasmus’s  parents  and  early  life,  Allen,  i,  46  IF  and  ep.  447;  Nichols, 
i,  pp.  5  ff,  and  ep.  443.  Erasmus  hated  his  uncles,  who  dealt  as  hardly  with 
him  as  they  had  done  with  his  father.  One  of  them  tried  to  rob  him  of  a  shirt. 
Allen,  ep.  76.  On  the  Dutch  lack  of  family  names,  L.  Pastor:  History  of  the 
Popes,  tr.  by  B.  F.  Kerr,  ix,  34;  N.  Paulus:  Die  Deutschen  Dominikaner  im 
Kampfe  gegen  Luther ,  1906,  p.  68. 


6 


ERASMUS 


acquired  a  mastery  of  Latin  and  also,  we  are  told,  of 
Greek,  a  language  still  almost  unknown  north  of  the 
Alps,  which  he  probably  picked  up  during  a  sojourn 
in  Italy.  His  attainments  marked  him  out  as  the  object 
of  his  brothers’  envy,  and  they  conspired  against  him 
like  another  Joseph.  Being  unable  to  sell  him  to  the 
Midianites,  they  desired  to  make  him  a  priest,  in  order 
thus,  as  they  hoped,  to  deprive  him  of  his  share  in  the 
family  inheritance.  Under  their  pressure,  Gerard  took 
holy  orders. 

Before  his  ordination,1  the  young  man  entered  into 
a  liaison  with  a  widow  named  Margaret,  the  daughter  of 
a  physician  in  the  neighboring  village  of  Zevenberghen. 
The  pair  had  two  sons,  Peter,  born  when  his  parents 
were  both  about  twenty-five  years  old,  and  Erasmus, 
three  years  younger.  Not  long  before  the  birth  of  his 
second  son  Gerard  deserted  his  mistress,  perhaps  on 
account  of  further  persecution  by  his  family,  and  went 
to  Rome.  In  this  polished  but  corrupt  city,  then  under 
the  rule  of  Paul  II,  he  led  a  dissipated  life,  supporting 
himself  by  copying  manuscripts,  and  sent  his  parents 
a  letter  with  a  picture  of  two  clasped  hands  and  the 
words,  “Farewell,  I  shall  never  see  you  more.”  However, 
he  later  decided  to  return,  perhaps  in  consequence  of 
a  letter  from  his  family  containing  the  false  news  that 
Margaret  was  dead.  After  his  home-coming  he  took  care 
of  his  children,  but  did  not,  apparently,  live  with  their 
mother  any  longer.2 * * 5 

Soon  after  he  had  taken  orders,  probably,  and  perhaps 


1  In  January,  1506,  on  account  of  his  illegitimate  birth,  Erasmus  got  a 

dispensation  from  the  pope  to  hold  benefices.  He  there  is  described  as  born 

“of  a  bachelor  and  widow,”  which  would  dispose  of  the  idea  that  he  was  the 
son  of  a  priest,  were  it  not  that  he  was  obliged  later  to  get  a  second  dispensa¬ 
tion  (1517)  in  which  his  defectus  natalium  is  said  to  be  that  he  was  “born  of 

an  illicit  and,  as  he  fears,  of  an  incestuous  and  damned  union.”  This  would 
imply  that  in  the  interval  he  had  learned  something  more  about  his  birth, 
and  also  that  he  was  himself  uncertain  of  its  details. — Allen,  iii,  p.  xxix,  and 
ep.  518.  Erasmus  was  probably  born  after  his  father  was  ordained. 

5  Charles  Reade’s  great  novel,  The  Cloister  and  the  Hearth ,  is  founded  on 
the  adventures  of  Gerard. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


7 


during  his  absence,  his  second  son  was  born  and  given 
the  then  common  name  of  Erasmus,  chosen,  possibly, 
as  a  Greek  rendering  of  his  father’s  name.  A  little 
house  in  Nieuw-Kerk  Street  in  Rotterdam  bears  the 
inscription  saying  that  in  it  was  born  the  great  Erasmus, 
and  this  location  may  be  considered  the  most  likely 
one,  though  it  is  not  altogether  beyond  doubt.  Mar¬ 
garet  may  have  gone  there  to  hide  her  shame  or,  accord¬ 
ing  to  an  early  tradition,  have  been  sent  there  by  Gerard 
to  conceal  his  sin.1 

Erasmus  always  celebrated  the  feast  of  St.  Simon  and 
St.  Jude  (October  28th)  as  his  birthday,  but  as  to  the 
year  his  accounts  vary  strangely.  Several  indirect 
references2 — such  as  the  statement  that  he  met  Colet 
when  they  were  both  just  thirty  (1499)  and  that  he  was 
fourteen  years  old  when  he  left  Deventer  (1484) — point 
to  the  year  1469  as  the  one  he  had  in  mind,  and  that  this 
is  the  true  year  is  confirmed  by  early  local  tradition.3 

1  This  house  was  shown  to  visitors  as  the  birthplace  of  Erasmus  as  early 
as  1540. — Brown:  Calendar  of  State  Papers ,  Venice ,  v,  222.  In  1591  Fynes 
Moryson  visited  the  house,  and  also  noted  that  the  wooden  statue  of  Erasmus 
had  been  broken  down  by  the  Spanish  soldiers  in  the  Dutch  war  of  independ¬ 
ence.  See  his  Itinerary ,  ed.  1907,  pp.  107  ff.  Cornelius  Loos,  a  Dutchman 
who  lived  a  little  later,  relates  that  the  stone  statue  of  Erasmus  was  erected 
after  the  Rotterdam  fire  of  1563,  and  was  destroyed  by  Spanish  soldiers  in 
1572.  On  the  place  of  Erasmus’s  birth  he  says:  “  If  we  may  credit  the  tradition 
of  the  fathers  in  these  parts,  his  father  was  a  parish  priest  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Gouda,  who  in  order  to  conceal  his  crime  sent  his  pregnant  servant  to  a 
neighboring  city.” — Cornelius  Loos:  Illustrium  Germania  Scriptorum  Cata¬ 
logs,  1582,  s.  v.  “Erasmus”  (no  paging).  A  copy  of  this  rare  book  is  at 
Cornell.  Against  this,  however,  may  be  placed  a  long  MS.  note  to  a  written 
extract  from  Loos,  now  found  in  the  town  library  of  Gouda.  The  writer  of 
this  is  unknown,  but  he  declares  that  Erasmus’s  friend,  Regner  Snoy,  had 
often  heard  Erasmus  say  that  he  was  born  at  Gouda.  This  printed  in  Archief 
voor  Kerkelijke  Geschiedenis,  xvi,  1845,  p.  232.  The  fact  that  Erasmus  took 
the  surname  “  Roterodamus,”  however,  shows  that  he  regarded  himself  as  a 
citizen  of  Rotterdam.  J.  Milton  speaks  of  a  bronze  statue  of  Erasmus  at 
Rotterdam.  Defensio  II  pro  Populo  Anglicano,  Works ,  1805,  v,  299. 

2  LB.  i,  921  f;  viii,  561;  Allen,  ep.  940;  and  perhaps  his  speaking  of  his 
schooling  at  the  age  of  thirteen,  LB.  ix,  810A.  Furthermore,  he  says  that  he 
wrote  his  first  epistle  (Allen,  ep.  1,  put  in  1484)  when  he  was  fourteen;  see 
Allen,  ep.  447,  and  LB.  i,  347. 

3  Cornelius  Loos,  loc.  cit.  This  date  is  apparently  accepted  by  the  unknown 
annotator  on  Loos,  cited  above. 


8 


ERASMUS 


But  of  twenty-three  direct  references  to  his  age  the 
first  (made  in  1506)  gives  the  year  1466;  the  next  two 
(made  in  1516)  give  1467;  the  next  twelve  (made  during 
the  years  1517-24)  indicate  1466;  and  the  last  eight 
(made  during  the  years  1525-34)  point  to  1464.  In 
other  words,  the  older  he  became  the  earlier  he  put 
the  year  of  his  birth.  It  has  been  suggested,  with 
much  plausibility,1  that,  whereas  he  knew  the  true  year 
of  his  birth  to  be  1469,  he  made  himself  appear  older 
in  order  to  save  the  reputation  of  his  father  and  to  make 
it  easier  to  get  for  himself  certain  ecclesiastical  dis¬ 
pensations.  At  that  time  the  union  of  a  priest  with 
a  woman  was  considered  a  greater  sin  than  the  union 
of  two  unmarried  lay  persons,  and  the  illegitimate 
child  suffered  under  a  heavier  stigma.  If  Erasmus 
could  make  himself  and  his  contemporaries  believe  that 
he  had  been  born  before  his  father  took  orders,  he 
would  have  a  powerful  motive  to  do  so.  When  he 
selected  the  year  1466  he  may  have  appropriated  the 
birth  year  of  his  brother,  who  was  just  three  years 
older  than  himself.2 

The  boy’s  education  began  in  his  fifth  year  at  the 
school  of  a  certain  Peter  Winckel  of  Gouda.  The 
studies  were  chiefly  reading  and  writing  Dutch,  an 
unattractive  sort  of  learning  in  which  he  made  slow 
progress.  About  1475  he  was  transferred  to  the  famous 
school  at  Deventer.  Both  his  parents  died,  probably 
of  the  plague,  his  mother  in  1483,  his  father  the  following 
year.  His  mother  had  accompanied  him  to  Deventer. 
His  father  left  a  small  property,  consisting  partly  of 
the  valuable  manuscripts  he  had  copied,  which  was 
divided  between  the  orphan  boys.  It  w^as  perhaps  at 
some  time  during  the  school  year  at  Deventer  that 
Erasmus  was  withdrawn  for  a  time  and  sent  to  the 

1  P.  Mestwerdt:  Die  Anfdnge  des  Erasmus ,  1917,  pp.  178  ff.  Several  lists 
of  references  made  by  Erasmus  to  his  age  have  been  drawn  up;  the  fullest 
will  be  found  in  Appendix  I  to  this  book. 

*  In  like  manner  Napoleon  gave  himself  the  birthday  of  his  older  brother 
in  his  marriage  contract  with  Josephine. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


9 


Cathedral  school  at  Utrecht,  where  he  was  a  chorister. 
He  does  not  seem  to  have  kept  up  his  music  in  later 
life. 

Deventer  had  been  a  notable  school  for  a  century, 
having  been  founded  in  1380  by  Gerard  Groot,  the 
mystic  who  started  the  religious  societies  known  as  the 
Brethren  of  the  Common  Life.  True  to  the  traditions 
of  its  inception,  the  school  emphasized  religion,  even 
encouraging  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  vulgar 
tongue  as  well  as  in  Latin.  Among  its  many  famous 
graduates  were  Cardinal  Nicholas  of  Cusa  and  Thomas 
a  Kempis,  the  probable  author  of  The  Imitation  of 
Christ.  At  the  time  Erasmus  entered  it,  the  connection 
of  the  school  with  the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life  was 
still  organic,  for  the  rector  of  that  order,  Egmond  Ter 
Beek,  was  headmaster  of  the  Florentius  House  there 
until  his  death  in  1483.  It  is  barely  possible  that  he 
was  the  pedagogue  spoken  of  by  Erasmus  as  ‘‘both 
by  name  and  nature  a  driveling  ram.”1  There  was 
also  a  master  in  the  school  who,  in  order  to  have  an 
excuse  for  whipping  the  boy,  trumped  up  a  false  charge 
against  him,  by  which  he  almost  broke  his  pupil’s 
heart,  brought  on  an  attack  of  ague,  and  nearly  dis¬ 
sipated  his  love  of  learning. 

The  life  of  a  poor  schoolboy  was,  indeed,  not  an  easy 
one.  The  memoirs  of  Butzbach  and  Platter  tell  how 
they  were  used  as  fags  by  the  older  boys,  forced  to  beg, 
starved,  beaten,  scolded,  and  otherwise  brutally  abused 
both  by  their  seniors  and  by  the  masters.  At  Deventer 
there  was  perhaps  less  whipping  than  elsewhere.  The 
boys  paid  fines  for  speaking  Dutch  and  for  other  breaches 
of  the  rules.  They  were  encouraged  to  spy  on  one 
another  and  on  the  younger  masters.  The  day  was 
completely  filled  with  a  routine  of  appointed  task, 

1This  passage  from  the  Adages  quoted  by  Allen,  i,  p.  579.  The  word 
“Beek”  is  near  enough  to  the  Dutch  bok  (he-goat,  or  ram)  to  make  the 
identification  with  the  K piofivt-og  barely  possible.  On  the  other  hand,  “  Beek” 
means  river  in  Dutch,  and  is  so  used  by  Erasmus  in  his  epigram  on  the  death 
of  Arnold  Beka’s  daughter. — LB.  i,  1219. 


10 


ERASMUS 


meal  time  and  exercise,  from  four  in  the  morning,  when 
they  rose,  until  eight  or  nine  at  night.1 

Deventer  was  one  of  the  largest  schools.  A  little 
later  it  provided  instruction  for  2,200  boys.  There  were 
eight  forms,  each  of  which  must  have  had  an  average 
of  275  pupils.  The  boys  sat  on  the  floor  around  the 
master,  who  dictated  to  them  a  Latin  text,  translated 
and  commented  on  it,  and  heard  them  construe  and 
parse  yesterday’s  lesson.  The  principal  study  of  the 
nine  years  at  this  school  was  Latin,  though,  as  Erasmus 
assures  us,  “it  was  still  barbarous.  The  Pater  mens 
and  the  Tempora  were  read  aloud  to  the  boys,  and  the 
grammars  of  Eberard  and  John  Garland  were  dictated 
to  them.”  The  Pater  meus  was  an  exercise  book  with 
paradigms  of  the  declensions,  the  Tempora  a  similar 
manual  for  the  conjugations.  John  Garland  was  a 
thirteenth-century  Englishman  who  had  taught  at 
Toulouse.  His  books  were  filled  with  riddling  verses, 
such  as 

Latrat  et  amittit,  humilis,  vilis,  negat,  heret: 

Est  celeste  Canis  sidus,  in  amne  natat. 

The  answer  is  a  dog,  which  barks,  and  loses  (“dog” 
being  the  name  of  the  lowest  throw  at  dice),  is  humble, 
vile,  denies  like  an  apostate  (“a  dog  returned  to  its 
vomit”),  adheres;  is  the  Dog  Star,  and  swims  (the 
dogfish).  “Heavens!”  exclaims  Erasmus,  “what  a  time 
that  was  when  the  couplets  of  John  Garland  were  read 
out  to  the  boys,  accompanied  by  a  prolix  commentary! 
A  great  part  of  the  school  was  employed  in  dictating, 
repeating,  and  saying  by  heart  some  silly  verses.”2 

Other  books  used  were  the  Floretus ,  a  sort  of  abstruse 
catechism,  the  Cornutus,  a  treatise  on  synonyms,  the 
grammatical  works  of  Papias  and  Huguitio,  and  a 

1  Allen:  “A  Sixteenth-century  School,”  English  Historical  Review ,  x,  738 

(1895). 

2  De  pueris  instituendis,  LB.  i,  514F.  Allen:  The  Age  of  Erasmus ,  35  ff; 
Woodward:  Erasmus  Concerning  the  Aim  and  Method  of  Education ,  p.  102. 
Catalogus  van  den  Incunabelen  in  de  Atheneum-Bibliothek  to  Deventer.  Door 
M.  E.  Kronenberg,  1917. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


1 1 


dictionary  called  the  Catholicon.  All  these  were  written 
in  Latin,  and  in  a  Latin  of  an  almost  inconceivably 
obscure  and  difficult  type.  The  Catholicon ,  by  John 
Balbus,  was  one  of  the  very  first  books  to  be  printed, 
in  an  edition  dated  1460,  by  Gutenberg  at  Mainz.  It 
was  an  important  work  in  its  time,  being  the  first 
dictionary  arranged  on  the  alphabetical  principle. 
Former  works  had  grouped  the  w^ords  according  to 
their  roots,  or  supposed  derivations.  These  were  often 
of  the  most  fanciful  kind;  thus  hirundo  (swallow)  was 
derived  from  aer ,  because  it  lived  in  the  air;  and  ovis  from 
offero ,  because  sheep  were  offered  in  sacrifice;  nix  from 
nuhes ,  because  snow  comes  from  a  cloud.  One  of  these 
derivations  has  become  proverbial,  that  of  Papias, 
“lucus  a  non  lucendo,”  because  “a  grove  lacks  light 
(lux)  and  is  therefore  called,  antiphrastically,  lucus.” 

The  date  of  the  beginning  of  Erasmus’s  schooling 
is  fixed  by  his  remark  that  he  was  at  Deventer  when 
Pope  Sixtus  IV  proclaimed  a  jubilee  (1475).  He  was 
still  there  in  April,  1484,  when  Rudolph  Agricola,  a 
famous  humanist,  visited  the  school,  and  Erasmus  was 
presented  to  him  as  the  head  pupil,  and  perhaps  read 
a  prize  poem.  It  is  possible  that  the  verses  have  been 
preserved;  if  they  are  the  ones  beginning  “Pamphilus 
insano  Galateae  captus  amore.”  They  are  a  chaudfroid 
of  Vergilian  phrases,  and  yet  they  may  contain  a  kernel 
of  genuine  personal  reminiscence,  some  calf  love  not 
otherwise  known.  The  reason  for  thinking  this  is  that 
Pamphilus  is  a  name  almost  synonymous  with  Erasmus, 
and  is  used  as  a  pseudonym  by  him  elsewhere.  In  one 
of  his  Colloquies ,  first  published  in  1523,  Erasmus 
recounts  a  love  passage  between  Pamphilus  and  Maria, 
in  which  the  girl  is  cruel,  the  suitor  desperate.1 

Shortly  before  Erasmus  left  Deventer  the  school  was 
given  “a  breath  of  better  learning”  by  John  Sintheim, 

^LB.  i,  692  ff.  Ruelens:  “Notice  sur  la  jeunesse  et  les  premiers  travaux 
d’Erasme,”  in  Erasmi  Roterodami  Silva  Carminum ,  reproduction  photo- 
litliographique ,  1864.  On  Agricola’s  visit,  Allen,  i,  p.  2.  Pamphilus  was  also 
the  name  of  one  of  the  story-tellers  in  Boccaccio’s  Decameron. 


12 


ERASMUS 


an  excellent  master  and  a  humanist,  who  is  said  to 
have  prophesied  Erasmus’s  future  greatness.1  At  the 
death  of  his  father,  probably  in  1484,  the  boy  was  left 
in  charge  of  guardians,  one  of  whom  was  the  pedagogue 
of  Gouda,  Peter  Winckel.  Erasmus’s  first  extant  letter 
was  written  at  this  period,  advising  his  guardian  to 
sell  the  books  left  by  Gerard.  The  man  returned  it 
with  the  sarcastic  comment  that  epistles  written  in 
such  stilted  Latin  should  be  accompanied  by  a  com¬ 
mentary.2  Both  the  sons  of  Gerard  tried  to  persuade 
their  guardians  to  send  them  to  a  university,  whereas 
these  gentlemen  advised  them,  on  the  contrary,  to 
enter  a  cloister.  A  temporary  compromise  was  effected 
by  which  the  boys  were  allowed  to  pursue  their  studies 
in  another  school  of  the  Brothers  of  the  Common  Life 
at  ’S  Hertogenbosch,  until  October,  i486.3 

Erasmus’s  later  observation  that  he  was  a  dull  pupil 
is  to  some  extent  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  he  took 
eight  years  to  cover  at  Deventer  the  curriculum  passed 
by  Butzbach  in  two  years.4  But  by  the  time  he  got 
to  ’S  Hertogenbosch  he  was  far  in  advance  of  his  masters, 
who,  recognizing  his  excellence,  asked  him  to  make  an 
epitome,  for  school  use,  of  Lorenzo  Valla’s  excellent 
textbook  of  style,  the  Elegancies  of  Latin .5  In  later 
life  he  represented  the  influences  of  the  school  as  exces¬ 
sively  monastic,  a  charge  which  he  then  greatly  ex¬ 
aggerated,  owing  to  his  increased  dislike  of  monasticism. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  known  that  the  Brethren  of 
the  Common  Life  did  not  urge,  nor  even  allow,  their 
pupils  to  become  regular  canons,  and  that  Egbert  Ter 
Beek,  rector  of  the  Florentius  House  at  Deventer, 
opposed  the  plan  of  Nicholas  of  Cusa  to  guide  boys 
into  a  monastic  career.6 

1  Allen,  i,  p.  57. 

2  Allen,  ep.  i,  and  ii,  p.  245.  De  conscribendis  epistolis ,  LB.  i,  347E. 

3  Rather  than  1487,  as  Mr.  Allen  thinks. 

4  Mestwerdt:  Die  Anfdnge  des  Erasmus ,  1917,  p.  202  f. 

6  LB.  i,  1067;  Ruelens,  5;  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  i,  152. 

8  Mestwerdt,  183,  131. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


13 


On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  well  known  that 
the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life  set  great  store  by 
the  humanities  and  did  not  forbid  their  pupils  to  read 
heathen  authors.  Not  only  by  Agricola  and  Sintheim, 
but  by  most  of  his  other  masters,  the  promising  boy 
would  have  been  encouraged,  according  to  the  precepts 
of  Gerard  Groot,  to  read  the  ancient  moral  philoso¬ 
phers,  particularly  Seneca.1  From  them  he  would  even 
have  learned  the  first  principles  of  textual  criticism,  for 
their  constitutions  prescribed  the  greatest  care  in  secur¬ 
ing  correct  manuscripts  for  copying,  “lest  we  should 
burden  our  consciences  by  writing  erroneous  books.”2 

Returning  to  Gouda  in  the  autumn  of  i486,  Peter 
and  Erasmus  found  that  the  estate  left  by  their  father 
(whatever  it  may  have  been)  had  gone  to  waste,  and 
that  one  guardian  had  died.  The  other  again  pressed 
his  wards  to  enter  the  monastery.  According  to  a 
much  later  account,  a  violent  scene  ensued,  followed 
by  a  trial  of  gentler  methods.  A  swarm  of  monks  was 
introduced,  one  of  whom  painted  a  charming  picture 
of  the  tranquillity  of  the  cloister,  another  in  a  tragic 
vein  magnified  the  perils  of  the  world,  while  a  third 
dwelt  on  the  terrors  of  hell  “as  though  there  were  no 
road  from  the  cloister  to  the  world  below.”  Finally 
an  old  comrade,  Cornelius,  referred  to  by  Erasmus  as 
Canthelius  (ass)  practiced  upon  the  boy’s  love  of  letters. 
These  combined  efforts  finally  succeeded.  The  brothers 
both  entered  the  monastic  life,  though  not  both  the 
same  cloister.  Peter  chose  the  monastery  at  Sion  near 
Delft.  Erasmus  wrote  him  an  affectionate  letter  in  1487, 
and  referred  to  him  pleasantly  in  1498,  but  later  spoke 
of  him  in  very  bitter  terms  as  a  man  given  to  dissipation. 
At  his  death  in  1528  he  felt  no  regrets.3 

The  monastery  selected  by  Erasmus  for  himself  was 

1  Mestwerdt,  p.  97. 

2  Mestwerdt,  p.  142. 

3  Allen,  ep.  3.  A  “Petr.  Roterodamus”  matriculated  at  Cologne  on 
September  12,  1522,  who  may  have  been  Erasmus’s  brother.  H,  Keussen: 
Die  Matrikel  der  Universitat  Koln ,  ii,  1919,  p.  851. 


14 


ERASMUS 


the  priory  of  Emmaus  at  Steyn,  about  a  mile  from 
Gouda;  it  had  been  founded  in  1419  by  a  man  who 
became  its  first  prior,  James,  son  of  Gyrard,  on  lands 
given  by  John  the  Bastard  of  Blois.  It  belonged  to 
the  same  congregation  as  did  the  cloister  of  Sion.  The 
order  was  that  of  Augustinian  Canons,  not  to  be  con¬ 
fused  with  the  Augustinian  Eremites,  or  Austin  friars, 
to  which  Luther  belonged.  The  order  had  originated 
among  the  canons  of  cathedral  chapters,  who  had 
formed  a  loose  association  and  taken  the  “rule  of  St. 
Augustine,”  so  called,  for  the  guide.1  Erasmus  had 
no  real  vocation  for  the  monastic  life.  Nevertheless, 
he  found  in  the  cloister  congenial  friends,  for  one  of 
whom,  Servatius,  later  prior,  he  soon  conceived  a 
violent  passion.  His  letters  of  this  period  to  him  and 
to  another  young  monk  are  full  of  alternate  rapture 
and  despair,  kisses  and  tears.2 

He  also  found  the  leisure  to  pursue  his  darling  studies. 
Indeed,  he  wrote  an  essay  on  Contempt  of  the  World3 
to  prove  that  the  monastic  career  was  of  all  the  pleasant¬ 
est  and  “most  Epicurean.”  His  warm  enthusiasm  for 
the  pagan  Latin  writers  shines  through  the  copious 
references  to  them  in  his  early  correspondence.  Many 
of  them  he  mentions  by  name  and  characterizes.  With 
a  touch  reminding  us  of  his  later  pacifism  he  praises 
Ovid  because  “his  pen  is  nowhere  dipped  in  blood.”4 
Seldom  if  ever  quoting  from  the  Bible,  mentioning 
Augustine  only  once  or  twice,  he  yet  evinces  a  high 
admiration  for  Jerome’s  letters,  full,  as  they  are,  of 

1  Kirchenlexicon ,  ii,  pp.  1829  ff.  On  Steyn,  Allen,  i,  585;  Ruelens,  1  ff. 

2  Allen,  epp.  17-30.  His  letter  to  Servatius  excusing  himself  for  having 
“been  inclined  to  those  pleasures,  though  never  their  slave,”  Allen,  i,  p.  567. 
July  8,  1514.  The  reading  “inclinatus”  is  preferred  by  Allen;  that  of 
“inquinatus”  is  found  in  most  MSS. 

8  De  Contemptu  Mundi ,  LB.  v,  1257C.  Cf.  Allen,  i,  p.  18,  and  ep.  1194, 
and  letter  to  a  monk,  October  27,  1527,  LB.  iii,  col.  1024  f;  Lond.  xx,  18. 
Petrarch  had  written  a  De  Contemptu  Mundi,  not  known  to  Erasmus. 
Innocent  III  had  also  written  a  De  Contemptu  Mundi ,  sive  de  miseria  condi¬ 
tions  humana ,  Migne  Patrologia  Latina,  vol.  217,  pp.  701-46.  This  had  been 
printed  several  times  before  1480,  and  may  have  been  known  to  Erasmus. 

4  LB.  iii,  col.  1257BC. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


15 


Roman  life,  and  couched  in  easy  Latin.  Among  the 
more  recent  humanists  he  defends  Agricola,  Hegius,  and 
iEneas  Sylvius  Piccolomini  (Pius  II),  whose  letters, 
novels,  and  diaries  disclose  so  much  knowledge  of  the 
world  and  so  much  interesting  information  about  it. 

But  of  all  the  moderns  the  one  to  excite  his  enthusiasm 
to  the  highest  pitch  was  Lorenzo  Valla,  whose  influence 
on  him  was  almost  incalculable.  As  a  stylist,  a  critic, 
an  anticlerical,  and  an  exponent  of  a  completely  undog- 
matic  Christianity,  the  Dutchman  was  the  Italian’s 
truest  disciple.  For  Valla  was  an  incarnation  of  the 
intellectual  Renaissance,  a  critic  and  iconoclast  of  the 
caliber  almost  of  Voltaire,  unparalleled  as  yet  in  modern 
Europe  for  the  daring,  acumen,  force,  irreverence,  and 
brilliancy  of  his  attacks  on  religion.  True,  Valla  called 
himself  a  Christian,  and  probably  without  hypocrisy, 
but  his  ideal  was  of  a  purely  moral,  humanitarian 
religion,  unhampered  either  by  creed  or  by  ritual. 
Interested  in  theology,  of  which  he  was  a  master,  he 
insisted  on  the  genuine  old  theology  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  Fathers  over  against  the  spurious  new  scholasti¬ 
cism  and  asceticism.  The  old  doctors  of  the  church 
he  compared  to  bees  making  honey,  the  newer  to  wasps 
stealing  grain  from  others.  In  exposing  the  Donation 
of  Constantine  as  a  forgery  he  put  into  the  hands 
of  the  Protestants  who  came  after  him  one  of  their 
most  trenchant  weapons.  Again,  in  his  Notes  on  the 
New  Testament ,  he  pointed  out  the  numerous  errors 
in  the  Vulgate,  then  usually  considered,  as  it  was  later 
officially  declared  to  be,  the  authentic  form  of  the 
Scriptures.  In  a  work  on  the  monastic  life  (De  Pro¬ 
fession  Religiosorum )  he  called  in  question  the  worth 
of  asceticism.  In  a  dialogue  “On  Pleasure,”  one  inter¬ 
locutor,  representing  the  Epicurean  philosophy,  main¬ 
tains  that  a  prostitute  is  a  more  useful  member  of 
society  than  is  a  nun.  Valla’s  own  opinions,  represented 
neither  by  the  Epicurean  nor  by  his  Christian  opponent, 
but  by  the  arbitrating  Niccoli,  cannot  be  characterized 


1 6 


ERASMUS 


as  atheistic  and  hedonistic,  but  the  veiy  fact  that  he 
canvassed  such  ideas  was  significant  of  his  free  spirit. 
Moreover,  he  was  intensely  antipapal  and  anticlerical. 
In  all  things  he  was  the  spirit  who  eternally  contradicts. 
Attracted  not  only  by  the  brilliancy  of  his  language, 
but  by  the  cogency  of  his  argument  and  the  keenness 
of  his  criticism,  Erasmus  remained  throughout  life  the 
disciple  and  in  many  respects  the  spiritual  descendant 
of  the  Roman  critic.1  He  had,  while  yet  in  school, 
paraphrased  one  of  Valla’s  grammatical  works  which, 
on  account  of  its  attacks  on  Priscian  and  the  mediaeval 
grammarians,  was  treated  as  heretical  by  some  monks.2 
Later  in  life  he  was  to  follow  Valla  in  many  a  path  of 
biblical  exegesis  and  of  metaphysical  argument. 

Not  contenting  himself  with  reading,  Erasmus  tire¬ 
lessly  practiced  his  pen.  The  language  he  always  used 
was  Latin,  then  the  tongue  of  the  Church,  of  diplomacy, 
of  learning,  and  of  the  greater  part  of  accessible  literature. 
Few  works  of  high  merit  had  as  yet  been  produced  in 
any  European  vernacular;  practically  none  in  Dutch, 
and  this  narrowness  of  his  native  dialect  doubtless  led 
the  aspiring  author  to  select  the  language  of  Rome  as 
the  vehicle  for  his  thoughts.  He  knew  Dutch,  of  course, 
which  came  back  to  him  on  his  deathbed,  notwith¬ 
standing  a  life-long  use  of  Latin  in  conversation  as  well 
as  in  writing;  and  he  learned  to  speak  a  little  French, 
English,  and  Italian  while  he  was  staying  among  those 
peoples.  Nevertheless,  his  attitude  to  his  mother  tongue 
is  strikingly  conservative  compared  with  that  of  Luther, 
Rabelais,  and  Skelton.3 

1  On  Valla  in  general,  P.  Monnier:  Le  Quattrocento ,  1908,  i,  275  ff; 
Creighton:  History  of  the  Papacy,  ii,  338  ff.  E.  Fueter:  Geschichte  des  neuren 
Historiographic ,  1911,  pp.  38  f,  H2f.,  Mestwerdt,  50  ff.  M.  v.  Wolff:  Lorenzo 
Valla ,  Sein  Leben  und  Seine  fVerke ,  1893. 

2  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes,  tr.  by  Antrobus,  i,  51. 

*  His  use  of  Dutch  at  the  last,  Allen,  i,  53  f.  French,  Allen,  epp.  119,  124; 
Nichols,  epp.  122,  1 1 3 .  German  he  says  he  did  not  know.  Italian  he  refused 
to  talk  (LB.  ep.  533,  Lond.  xiii,  43),  but  some  words  of  that  language  and  of 
English  occur  in  his  De  Pronunciatione,  and  more  rarely  elsewhere — e.  g.t 
the  English  word  “sin”  in  the  Praise  of  Folly. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


i7 

It  is  unnecessary  to  review  the  various  exercises 
written  at  this  period,  the  elegiac  verses,  the  epistles, 
the  declamations,  all  of  which  are  good,  but  none  of 
which  is  remarkable.  They  all  tell  one  tale — a  passionate 
love  of  letters  and  the  unceasing  effort  to  become  a 
master  of  style.  The  most  elaborate  of  the  pieces  bears 
a  title  which  might  be  given  to  them  all,  the  Antibarbari } 
It  is  an  essay  on  the  text  of  most  of  Erasmus’s  later 
works,  the  loveliness  of  “good  letters,”  and  the  wicked¬ 
ness  and  grossness  of  the  barbarians  who  opposed  the 
children  of  light.  In  this  work,  and  another  like  unto 
it,  The  Conflict  between  Thalia  and  Barbarity, 2  the 
author’s  satire  is  directed  against  the  monks  and  peda¬ 
gogues  who  neglect  literature,  the  keen  sarcasms  remind¬ 
ing  us  of  similar  passages  in  the  Praise  of  Folly. 

In  these  works  the  author  broached  a  question  that 
exercised  him  much  throughout  life,  namely  that  of  the 
relation  of  culture  to  religion,  and  gave  it  the  same 
answer  now  that  he  always  gave  it  later,  namely  that 
though  virtue  and  learning  are  not  the  same  thing, 
yet  they  are  not  hostile,  and  may  even  be  helpful  to 
each  other,  as  both  are  good.  Christians  have  learned 
from  the  pagans  almost  all  they  know  of  the  arts  of 
peace  and  of  war,  as  wTell  as  of  writing,  speech,  poetry, 
and  science.  True,  religion  is  the  “best  of  things,” 
but  it  is  not  the  only  good  thing,  and  even  it  is  helped 
by  the  truth  discovered  by  the  Greek  philosophers,  who, 
as  Augustine  said,  “scintillated  sparks  of  the  immortal 
light.”3 

While  at  Steyn  Erasmus  dabbled  in  the  art  of  painting. 
A  letter  written  in  1488  speaks  of  some  flowers  that  he 
had  painted  in  a  book.  There  is  also  a  record  of  a 
picture  of  Christ  on  the  cross,  with  the  inscription,  in 

1  LB.  x,  1691.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  pp.  55-80.  Allen,  ep.  mo. 

‘First  published  in  1693.  LB.  i,  889  ff.  There  is  a  slight  doubt  as  to  its 
genuineness.  Cf.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  Colloquia.  It  has  been  put  in  June, 
1489,  just  after  Erasmus’s  letter  to  Cornelius  Gerard,  Allen,  ep.  23,  but  cf. 
Mestwerdt,  206  n.  6. 

s  On  this  Mestwerdt,  250,  260  ff. 


i8 


ERASMUS 


Latin,  “Desiderius  Erasmus  painted  this  long  ago  at 
Steyn.”  It  belonged,  at  one  time,  to  Cornelius  Musius 
(1500-72),  provost  of  the  convent  of  St.  Agatha  at 
Delft.  A  painting  of  the  crucifixion,  a  triptych,  has 
long  been  known,  and  is  now  in  America,  which  bears, 
on  the  shield  of  one  of  the  soldiers,  the  words,  “  Erasmus 
P[inxit],  1501.”  This,  however,  is  certainly  not  by 
Erasmus  of  Rotterdam.  The  inscription  is  barely 
legible  and,  if  admitted,  might  apply  either  to  the  name 
of  the  person  represented  in  the  picture  (St.  Erasmus), 
or  to  some  other  painter  with  the  same  name.  The 
painting  is  a  fine  one  and  bears  some  resemblance  to 
a  similar  picture  attributed  to  Diirer.1 

The  pen,  rather  than  the  brush,  unlocked  the  gates 
of  the  house  of  fame  for  Erasmus,  and  also  found  him 
early  employment.  In  those  days  all  public  men,  as 
well  as  all  governments,  needed  secretaries  skilled  in 
the  learned  tongue,  to  give  intelligibility  and  elegance 
to  their  state  papers.  The  young  canon  was  offered, 
and  accepted,  such  a  position  from  the  Bishop  of  Cam- 
brai,  Henry  of  Bergen,  one  of  the  bastards  of  John 
Labeo  (“Thick-lips”)  of  Bergen,  who  was  reputed  to 
have  ten  legitimate  and  thirty-six  natural  children. 
On  April  25,  1492,  probably  not  long  after  he  had  entered 
the  service  of  the  Bishop  of  Cambrai,  Erasmus  was 
ordained  priest  at  Utrecht  by  Henry  of  Burgundy, 
bishop  of  the  diocese.2 

Next  to  nothing  is  known  of  the  young  man’s  life  at 
the  episcopal  court.  He  speaks  of  having  heard  of  the 
exploits  of  Albert,  Duke  of  Saxony,  the  agent  employed 
by  Maximilian  in  subduing  a  rebellion  in  Holland.  In 
1489,  after  a  long  siege,  Albert,  aided  by  the  party 
known  as  the  Cods,  took  Amsterdam,  and  by  1492 
pacified  the  whole  province.  The  courageous  but  cruel 

1  Allen,  ep.  16;  Nichols,  ep.  15;  Maurice  W.  Brockwell:  Erasmus,  Humanist 
and  Painter ,  1918.  (Privately  printed.)  The  Diirer  painting  which  it  resem¬ 
bles  is  reproduced  in  Klassiker  der  Kunst ,  Diirer ,  p.  83. 

5  On  Henry  of  Bergen,  A.  Walther:  Anfange  Karls  V ,  1911,  p.  18.  On  the 
ordination,  Allen,  i,  p.  588;  ii,  p.  304. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


19 


soldier  was  much  hated  by  the  peasants,  the  poor 
“bread-and-cheese  folk,’’  as  they  called  themselves, 
but  their  famous  compatriot  bore  no  rancor  against 
the  son  of  his  country’s  enemy.1 

As  the  Bishop  of  Cambrai  stood  in  close  relations 
with  the  young  duke  Philip,  whose  marriage  with  Joanna 
of  Spain  he  celebrated  at  Brussels,  October  21,  1496, 
Erasmus  must  have  caught  some  glimpse  of  the  gorgeous 
and  polished  Burgundian  court.  Of  all  this  experience, 
however,  nothing  has  come  down  to  us.  All  that  is 
known  is  that  he  continued  his  studies,  becoming  at 
this  time  especially  attracted  to  Augustine,  a  taste 
which  perhaps  indicates  a  deeper  interest  in  religion 
than  he  had  hitherto  shown.2 

But  the  court  was  not  a  good  place  for  study  and  the 
young  scholar  persisted  in  his  desire  to  go  to  a  university. 
His  attention  turned  to  Paris  both  because  it  was  the 
oldest  and  most  famous  seat  of  learning  north  of  the 
Alps,  and  because  some  of  his  comrades  had  studied 
there.  In  1495  the  opportunity  to  follow  their  example 
came  to  him.* 

Had  we  been  able  to  enter  Paris  with  Erasmus  we 
should  have  been  struck  first  with  the  quaint,  mediaeval 
appearance  of  the  town,  the  narrow,  crooked  streets, 
the  low  houses,  the  lack  of  drainage  and  of  lights.  But, 
notwithstanding  the  unfamiliar  appearance  of  the  streets 
and  of  the  walls,  we  should  soon  have  been  able  to 
convince  ourselves  that  this  was  indeed  the  capital  of 
France.  Approaching  from  the  north  we  should  have 
seen  a  palace  called  the  Louvre  standing  just  outside 
the  wall,  though  it  is  not  the  Louvre  of  to-day,  which 
was  built  later.  We  should  not  have  known  the  palace 
on  the  site  of  the  later  Bastille;  but  on  the  lie  de  la 
Cite,  Notre  Dame  and  the  Sainte-Chapelle  would  be 

1  Letter  to  Duke  George  (Albert’s  son),  July  31,  1520.  Allen,  ep.  1125. 

*  Horawitz:  Erasmus  und  Martin  Lipsius ,  p.  114. 

•An  “Erasm.  de  Rotterdamis,  art.  i,  pauper,”  matriculated  at  Cologne  on 
June  6,  1496,  but  this  was  not  the  great  Erasmus.  H.  Keussen:  Die  Matrikel 
der  Universitat  Koln ,  ii,  1919,  p.  401. 


20 


ERASMUS 


conspicuous,  while  in  the  Latin  Quarter,  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Seine,  the  churches  of  St.  Germain-des- 
Pres  and  St.  Sulpice  and  the  recently  built  abbey  of 
Cluny  would  greet  us.  On  the  hill  now  crowned  by 
the  Pantheon  then  stood  the  church  of  Ste.-Genevieve, 
but  hard  by  was  St.-Etienne-du-Mont,  of  which  a  por¬ 
tion  remains  exactly  as  it  was.  The  Sorbonne  and  the 
various  other  colleges  of  the  university  were  scattered 
around  the  same  district,  as  they  now  are;  that  of  Mon- 
taigu,  inhabited  by  Erasmus,  just  north  of  Ste.-Gene¬ 
vieve,  on  the  site  of  the  present  library  of  that  name.1 

The  University  of  Paris  was,  with  the  possible  excep¬ 
tions  of  Bologna  and  Salerno,  the  oldest  and  most 
famous  in  Europe.  The  most  celebrated  faculty  at 
the  university  was  that  of  theology,  and  it  was  in  this 
that  Erasmus  matriculated.  The  course  was  of  extraor¬ 
dinary  length,  occupying  normally  fifteen  years,  so  that 
the  rule  that  the  recipient  of  the  doctor’s  degree  must 
be  thirty-five  years  old  was  almost  unnecessary.  After 
four  years  of  study  devoted  chiefly  to  the  Bible,  and 
two  years  on  Peter  Lombard’s  Sentences ,  the  candidate 
was  admitted  to  his  first  theological  degree,  that  of 
baccalaureus  ad  biblia.  After  this  he  was  allowed  to 
give  certain  lectures  for  three  years  until  his  promotion 
to  Sententiarius ,  or  baccalaureus  formatus.  After  six 
years  more  of  study  and  teaching  he  was  at  last  allowed 
to  take  his  doctorate.2  The  course  was,  in  practice, 
greatly  shortened  in  the  case  of  older  men,  who  were 

10n  the  topography  of  old  Paris,  cf.  the  map  in  H.  Rashdall:  History  of 
Universities  (Oxford,  1895),  i,  271.  A  number  of  old  pictures  at  the  Carnavalet 
Museum,  Paris,  give  a  vivid  idea  of  the  appearance  of  the  city  at  various 
times  in  its  history.  See  also:  Grant  Allen:  Paris,  pp.  52,  71.  S.  Reinach: 
“Ste.  Genevieve  sur  Notre  Dame  de  Paris,”  Gazette  des  Beaux- Arts,  1922,  pp. 
257  fF,  describes  and  reproduces  a  view  of  the  lie  de  la  Cite  from  a  15th- 
century  MS.,  showing  Ste.-Genevieve  as  a  gigantic  figure  kneeling  on  top  of 
Notre  Dame. 

2  Rashdall:  Universities,  i,  470  fF.  It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  course 
in  German  universities.  Luther,  after  about  three  years  of  special  study, 
became  baccalaureus  ad  biblia  on  March  9,  1509.  After  this  he  lectured  three 
semesters  on  the  Sentences  and  studied  and  perhaps  lectured  two  years  on  the 
Bible,  when  he  was  admitted  to  the  doctorate,  October  12,  1512. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


21 


able  to  enter  with  what  would  now  be  called  advanced 
standing.  Erasmus,  who  matriculated  in  his  twenty- 
sixth  year,  became  bachelor  of  theology  ( baccalaureus 
ad  biblia )  apparently  in  April,  1498,  after  five  semesters. 

In  preparation  for  this  degree,  he  gave  some  sermons, 
and  took  a  course  in  scholastic  philosophy.  This  study, 
so  deeply  repugnant  to  Luther,  aroused  the  mirth  of 
the  young  Dutchman.  Aquinas,  in  many  respects  the 
greatest  of  the  schoolmen,  was  by  this  time  little  re¬ 
garded,  for  his  system,  and  the  Realism  which  had 
flourished  in  the  heyday  of  scholasticism,  had  since 
been  superseded  by  Nominalism  and  the  later  philoso¬ 
phers,  Occam,  Biel,  and  Duns  Scotus.  The  alignment 
was  really  different  at  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages 
from  what  it  had  been  earlier.  In  the  twelfth  century 
the  deepest  questions  of  metaphysics  had  been  mooted, 
for  the  implication  of  realism  is  pantheism;  the  impli¬ 
cations  of  nominalism  are  materialism  and  individualism. 
In  these  latter  days  the  dispute  was  not  so  much  meta¬ 
physical  as  logical,  a  subtle  sophistry  engaged  with  the 
precise  meanings  of  crabbed  terms,  and  the  defense  of 
paradoxes.  The  disputants  were  intent  rather  on 
victory  than  on  truth.  The  “modern”  philosophy,  as 
nominalism  was  then  called,  had  been  condemned  by 
an  edict  of  the  Sorbonne  in  1472,  but  had  triumphed 
nine  years  later,  when  the  edict  was  repealed.  When 
Erasmus  entered  Paris,  the  Scotists  were  in  power, 
being  represented  by  the  influential  teachers  John 
Tartaret  and  Thomas  Bricot,  and  by  the  Franciscan 
preacher  and  reforming  Vicar  General,  Oliver  Maillard. 
The  question  most  to  the  front  at  the  time  was  the 
dogma  of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  not  yet  officially  adopted  by  the  Church,  but 
maintained  in  1496  by  the  professors  of  the  Sorbonne, 
whose  opinions  had  but  little  less  authority  with  the 
learned  public  than  those  of  the  Roman  Curia.1  Erasmus, 

1  A.  Renaudet:  Prereforme  et  Humanisme  a  Paris,  1916,  passim.  A. 
Renaudet:  “£rasme,”  in  Revue  Historique ,  cxi,  238  ff,  1912.  P.  Feret:  La 


22 


ERASMUS 


who  often  spoke  of  this  dispute  as  one  of  the  most 
barren,  was  brought  into  the  atmosphere  of  debate 
by  the  writings  of  his  friend  Gaguin,  whose  De  in¬ 
ternet  atce  Virginis  conceptione  was  first  published  at 
Paris  in  1489  and  afterward  reprinted  often,  once  at 
Deventer  in  1494.1 

Let  us  hear  what  Erasmus  has  to  say  about  his 
studies  in  scholastic  philosophy.  He  is  writing,  in 
August,  1497, 2  to  his  English  friend  and  pupil,  Thomas 
Grey: 

I,  who  have  always  been  a  primitive  theologian,  have  begun  of 
late  to  be  a  Scotist — a  thing  upon  which  you,  too,  if  you  love  me, 
should  pray  the  blessing  of  Heaven.  We  are  so  immersed  in  the 
dreams  of  your  compatriot — for  Scotus,  who,  like  Homer  of  old, 
has  been  adopted  by  divers  countries,  is  especially  claimed  by  the 
English  as  their  own — that  we  seem  hardly  able  to  wake  up  at 
the  voice  of  Stentor.  Then,  you  will  say,  are  you  writing  this  in 
your  sleep?  Hush,  profane  man!  you  know  nothing  of  theological 
slumber.  In  our  sleep  we  not  only  write,  but  slander  and  wench 
and  get  drunk.  ...  I  used  to  think  the  sleep  of  Epimenides  the 
merest  fable;  now  I  cease  to  wonder  at  it,  having  myself  had  the 
like  experience. 

Erasmus  then  goes  on  to  tell  the  story  of  Epimenides, 
an  ancient  Rip  van  Winkle  who,  one  day,  in  a  cave, 
while  making  many  discoveries  about  instances  and 
quiddities  and  formalities,  fell  into  a  sleep  which  lasted 
forty-seven  years. 

For  my  part,  I  think  Epimenides  uncommonly  fortunate  in  coming 
to  himself  even  so  late  as  he  did,  for  most  divines  never  wake  up  at 
all.  .  .  .  Look  now,  my  Thomas,  what  do  you  suppose  Epimenides 
dreamed  of  all  these  years?  What  else  but  those  subtlest  of  sub¬ 
tleties  of  which  the  Scotists  now  boast?  For  I  am  ready  to  swear 
that  Epimenides  came  to  life  again  in  Scotus.  What  if  you  saw 

Faculte  de  Theologie  a  Paris.  Vol.  I,  1900.  P.  Delisle:  La  Faculte  de  Theologie 
d  Paris.  Notices  et  Extraits  des  MSS.  de  la  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  1899,  vol. 
xxxvi,  pp.  325  ff.  Workman:  Christian  Thought  to  the  Reformation ,  1911,  p. 
243.  Bulaeus:  Historia  JJniversitatis  Parisiensis  a  Carlo  Magno  ad  nostra 
tempora,  6  vols.  1665-73.  H.  Rashdall:  Universities  of  Europe  in  the  Middle 
Ages ,  vol.  1,  1895. 

1  Bibliotheca  Belgica,  s.  v.  Gaguin. 

2  Allen,  ep.  64;  Nichols,  ep.  59. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


23 


Erasmus  sit  yawning  among  those  cursed  Scotists  while  Gryllard 
is  lecturing  from  his  lofty  chair?  If  you  observed  his  contracted 
brow,  his  staring  eyes,  his  anxious  face,  you  would  say  he  was 
another  man.  They  assert  that  the  mysteries  of  this  science  can¬ 
not  be  comprehended  by  one  who  has  any  commerce  with  the 
Muses  and  Graces.  ...  I  do  my  best  to  speak  nothing  in  true 
Latin,  nothing  elegant  or  witty,  and  I  seem  to  make  some  prog¬ 
ress.  .  .  .  Do  not  interpret  what  I  have  said  as  directed  against 
theology  itself,  which,  as  you  know,  I  always  have  singularly  culti¬ 
vated,  but  as  jokes  against  the  theologasters  of  our  age,  unsurpassed 
by  any  in  the  murkiness  of  their  brains,  in  the  barbarity  of  their 
speech,  the  stupidity  of  their  natures,  the  thorniness  of  their  doctrine, 
the  harshness  of  their  manners,  the  hypocrisy  of  their  lives,  the 
violence  of  their  language,  and  the  blackness  of  their  hearts. 

Erasmus  never  got  over  his  contempt  for  Scotist 
subtleties.  One  of  the  men  whom  he  knew  at  his  College 
of  Montaigu,  who  was,  indeed,  one  of  the  heads  of  it 
in  1499,  though  he  did  not  take  his  doctorate  in  theology 
until  1506,  was  the  Scotchman,  John  Major.  This 
scholar  was  much  given  to  the  sophistry  Erasmus 
ridicules.  One  of  his  works  was  characterized  by 
Melanchthon  as  follows:  “Good  heavens!  What  wagon 
loads  of  trifling!  What  pages  he  fills  with  disputes 
whether  there  can  be  horsiness  without  a  horse,  and 
whether  the  sea  was  salt  when  God  made  it.”  These 
specimens  were  no  exaggerations.  Major  seriously  dis¬ 
cusses  such  questions  as  whether  God  could  become 
an  ox  or  an  ass,  if  he  chose,  and  whether  John  the 
Baptist’s  head,  having  been  cut  off,  could  be  in  more 
than  one  place  at  a  time.  Erasmus  was  thinking  of 
works  like  these  when,  in  The  Praise  of  Folly ,  he  spoke 
of  the  barren  scholastic  tastes  of  the  Scotch,  and  brought 
up,  for  derision,  the  question,  suggested  by  Major,  as 
to  whether  God  could  have  redeemed  mankind  in  the 
form  of  an  animal  or  a  gourd.1  It  was  such  ridicule  as 
this  that  turned  the  first  name  of  Duns  Scotus  into  a 
synonym  for  fool. 

1  Hume  Brown:  Surveys  of  Scottish  History ,  1919,  p.  127.  On  Major, 
Godet:  College  de  Montaigu,  1912,  1  f;  A.  Clerval:  Registre  des  Proces - 
Verbaux  de  la  Faculte  de  Theologie  de  Paris ,  1917,  p.  5. 


24 


ERASMUS 


Erasmus  began  to  lecture,  presumably  on  the  Bible, 
shortly  after  receiving  his  degree  of  baccalaureus  ad 
biblia.  One  young  man,  who  heard  him  about  1498, 
wrote  thirty  years  later  how  much  he  had  then  admired 
his  teacher’s  learning  and  modesty,  his  attainments  in 
Latin,  Greek,  philosophy,  and  theology,  his  ardor  in 
teaching,  his  candor  in  writing,  and  his  piety.1  This 
pupil  was  Hector  Boece,  a  young  Scotchman,  later  the 
first  principal  of  King’s  College,  Aberdeen.  Erasmus 
returned  the  affection  and  dedicated  to  him  one  of  his 
first  published  writings,  a  short  poem  on  The  Hovel 
where  Jesus  was  Born.2 

Like  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  the  University  of  Paris 
was  divided  into  colleges,  originally  dormitories  for 
poor  students,  in  which  instruction  was  given  by  tutors. 
The  college  entered  by  Erasmus  was  that  of  Montaigu, 
which,  having  been  founded  by  Gilles  Aycelin  de  Mon¬ 
taigu,  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  in  1314,  had  fallen  into  a 
senile  decrepitude  by  the  year  1483.  It  owed  its  re¬ 
habilitation  to  John  Standonck  (c.  1450-February  5, 
1504),  the  son  of  a  poor  cobbler  of  Malines.3  As  a 
boy  Standonck  studied  with  the  Brothers  of  the  Common 
Life  at  Gouda,  matriculated  at  Louvain  in  1469,  and 
then  went  to  Paris,  where,  by  1475,  he  had  become 
regent  of  Montaigu.  In  1490  he  bought  a  little  house 
in  the  Rue  des  Sept  Voies  (which  corresponds  to  the 
present  Rue  Vallette)  for  the  lodging  and  boarding  of 
poor  students.  The  numbers  soon  outgrew  the  narrow 
quarters,  whereupon  Standonck  rebuilt  a  wing  of  the 
old  College  of  Montaigu,  on  the  site  of  the  present 
Place  du  Pantheon  at  the  intersection  of  the  Rue  Vallette. 
It  was  an  ample,  isolated,  quasi-monastic  cloister,  with 

1  May  28,  1528.  Enthoven,  ep.  62. 

2  Carmen  de  casa  natalia  Jesu,  first  published  1496;  LB.  v.  col.  1317; 
cf.  Allen,  ep.  47. 

•On  Montaigu  and  Standonck:  Renaudet:  Prereforme ,  p.  174;  Godet: 
La  Congregation  de  Montaigu ,  1912.  Godet,  in  Archivum  Franciscanum ,  ii, 
1909;  Imbart  de  la  Tour:  Les  Origines  de  la  Reforme,  ii,  506,  548.  Allen,  i,  p. 
200,  166.  Renaudet:  “J.  Standonck,”  Bxdletin  de  la  Societe  de  1’ Historic  du 
Protestantisme  Fran^ais,  1,  vii  (1908),  5  ff. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


25 


its  own  oratory,  dormitories,  library,  refectory,  and 
garden.  The  students  were  formed  into  a  congregation 
limited  in  numbers  to  86,  of  whom  72  were  poor  students 
in  the  arts  course,  12  were  theological  students,  and 
2  were  chaplains.  The  rule,1  imitated  from  that  of 
the  Brothers  of  the  Common  Life,  was  strict.  The 
fasting  was  perpetual,  though  the  theologs  were  allowed 
one  third  of  a  pint  of  cheap  wine,  mixed  with  water, 
at  each  meal.  Precautions  against  vermin  are  suggestive, 
especially  when  compared  with  Rabelais’s  satirical 
reference  to  “the  short-winged  hawks  of  Montaigu.” 
Flogging  was  a  frequent  punishment,2  though  we  never 
hear  that  Erasmus  was  subjected  to  it,  as  Loyola  was. 
The  Congregation  existed  in  its  constitution  after 
February,  1495,  but  it  did  not  move  into  its  new  quarters 
until  May  17,  1496.  After  Erasmus  had  left  the  college, 
Standonck  was  banished  from  France  and,  on  June  16, 
1499,  he  put  the  institution  in  charge  of  John  Major,  whom 
Erasmus  ridiculed,  and  of  Noel  Beda,  whom  he  hated. 

Standonck’s  reforming  activities  were  not  confined 
to  Paris.  He  helped  Henry  of  Bergen  to  found  schools 
at  Cambrai  and  at  Malines,  and  with  the  assistance 
of  Adrian  of  Utrecht  he  started  a  college  at  Louvain 
in  the  year  1500.  In  1496  he  was  also  busy  with  the 
reform  of  the  Augustinian  Canons.  The  General  Chapter 
held  at  Windisheim  under  his  inspiration  and  at  the 
demand  of  the  delegates  from  Chateau-Landon,  ap¬ 
pointed  six  monks  as  a  committee  of  reform.  One  of 
these  was  John  Mauburn,  a  good  man  with  whom 
Erasmus  was  acquainted.3 

All  these  connections  with  friends  in  the  Netherlands 
made  it  natural  that  when  Erasmus  went  to  Paris  he 
should  first  enter  the  Domus  pauperum  at  Montaigu. 
There  he  had  an  unhappy  time,  and  judged  the  methods 
severely.  “Nowhere,”  he  says  bitterly,  “do  they  form 

1  The  written  rule  (Godet,  p.  52)  dates  from  January  30,  1503,  but  it 
represents  the  earlier  customs. 

2  Henry  Botteus  to  Erasmus,  March  6,  1528,  LB.  App.  ep.  347. 

8  Allen,  ep.  52. 


26 


ERASMUS 


youths  in  less  elegant  science  and  in  worse  morals.” 
To  Standonck  he  allowed  good  intentions,  but  thought 
that  his  judgment  was  lacking.  Having  been  reared 
in  poverty  himself,  he  insisted  on  his  scholars  having 
“so  hard  a  bed,  so  sparing  and  cheap  a  diet,  such  heavy 
labor  and  such  long  vigils,  that  within  one  year  many 
men  of  noble  mind  and  bright  promise  either  committed 
suicide  or  became  blind,  or  mad,  or  leprous.”1  Indeed, 
the  rotten  eggs  and  the  infected  bedchambers  soon 
made  Erasmus  ill,  and  he  was  obliged  to  return  for  a 
visit  to  the  Netherlands.2  Kindly  received  by  the 
Bishop  of  Cambrai,  he  recovered  his  strength  and  then 
made  a  short  stay  at  Steyn.  Encouraged  by  his  friends 
here  to  go  back  to  Paris,  he  did  so  in  September,  1496. 
That  he  did  not  again  seek  admission  to  Montaigu  was 
partly  due  to  his  dislike  of  the  college,  partly  to  the  bad 
odor  in  which  he  was  probably  held  by  the  rigorists, 
Major  and  Beda.  More  than  thirty  years  later,  when 
Loyola  was  a  pupil  at  Montaigu,  his  doubts  about 
Erasmus's  orthodoxy  were  confirmed  by  local  traditions.3 

Erasmus  naturally  welcomed  an  opportunity  of  leav¬ 
ing  so  disagreeable  and  dangerous  a  place  and  going 
to  board  with  some  wealthy  young  Englishmen  he  was 
tutoring.  The  atmosphere  of  his  new  lodgings  was 
rendered  lively  by  the  encounters  of  the  mistress  and 
her  maid.  The  candidate  in  theology  did  not  make 
matters  any  more  peaceful,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
advised  the  maid  to  retaliate: 

“Do  you  fancy,”  said  I  to  her,  “that  the  issue  of  battles  depends 
only  on  strength?  .  .  .  When  she  attacks  you  again  pull  off  her 
cap”  (for  the  little  women  of  Paris  deck  themselves  wonderfully 
with  black  caps),  “and  go  for  her  hair.”  This  I  said  in  jest,  supposing 
it  had  been  taken  in  the  same  sense.  But  just  before  supper  time, 
a  guest  who  is  pursuivant  of  Charles  VIII,  commonly  called  Gentil 
Garmon,  ran  up  breathless.  “Come  here,”  cried  he,  “my  masters, 
and  you  will  see  a  bloody  sight.”  We  ran  to  the  spot  and  found  the 

1  Colloquia,  “Ichthyophagia”  (1526),  LB.  i,  806  f;  cf.  632A. 

*  Allen,  i,  p.  50,  and  ep.  48. 

3  Godet,  p.  99.  On  Major  and  Beda,  see  above.  They  were  inmates  of  the 
college  at  this  time,  though  not  yet  principals. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


27 


landlady  and  the  maid  rolling  on  the  ground  in  so  fierce  a  struggle 
that  it  was  with  difficulty  we  pulled  them  apart.  .  .  .  On  one  side 
lay  the  mistress’s  cap,  on  the  other  the  girl’s  kerchief,  the  ground 
was  covered  with  tufts  of  hair.  .  .  .  The  landlady  took  heaven  and 
earth  to  witness  that  she  had  never  met  a  girl  so  small  and  so  vicious. 
.  .  .  I  congratulated  myself  that  she  had  no  suspicions  of  my  part 
in  the  matter.1 

These  self-congratulations  may  have  been  premature; 
at  any  rate,  Erasmus  was  soon  asked  to  leave,  which 
he  did  with  much  hard  feeling  on  all  sides.  The  warning 
was  not  so  much  due  to  the  “inept  cunning”  of  the 
landlady,  Antonia,  as  to  “the  perfidy  of  certain  persons.” 
Erasmus’s  letters  at  this  time  are  filled  with  denuncia¬ 
tion  of  the  guardian  of  the  two  young  Englishmen  whom 
he  was  tutoring,  a  Scotchman  whom  he  describes  as 
“glaring  from  under  his  bushy  eyebrows  with  his 
brutal  eyes;  his  head  trembling,  his  lips  livid,  his  teeth 
discolored,  his  poisonous  breath  emerging  from  his  foul 
jaws,”  an  “assassin,”  and  “a  serpent.”2  As  the  denun¬ 
ciations  are  as  vague  as  they  are  violent,  it  is  difficult 
to  get  at  the  real  cause  of  the  quarrel.  It  seems,  however, 
extremely  likely  that  the  tutor  became  suspicious  of 
Erasmus’s  relations  with  one  of  his  pupils,  a  certain 
Gray,  to  whom  the  Dutch  priest  was  writing  letters 
in  the  same  loverlike  tone  with  which  he  had  formerly 
addressed  his  companions  in  the  monastery. 

If  we  ask  what  was  actually  the  moral  life  of  the 
student  at  this  time,  we  must  remember  that  the  city 
was  corrupt.  Popular  plays,  written  but  a  little  later, 
commonly  turn  on  the  seduction  of  girls.  In  one  of 
them  the  wife  of  a  merchant  goes  to  a  brothel  to  get 
an  assignation.  In  another  comedy  the  love  of  an 
abbe  and  a  married  woman  is  given  a  happy  ending  by 
their  mutual  vows  of  fidelity  to  each  other.3  The  uni¬ 
versity  had  a  number  of  students  given  over  to  dissipation. 

1  Allen,  ep.  55;  Nichols,  ep.  47.  Spring,  1497. 

*  Allen,  epp.  60,  61.  Nichols,  epp.  78,  55. 

3  Le  Theatre  Frangais  au  XVIe  et  au  XV lie  siecle,  ed.  E.  Fournier.  Parii, 
sine  anno. 


28 


ERASMUS 


How  far  Erasmus  yielded  to  the  temptations  of 
youth  and  boon  companionship  cannot  certainly  be 
told;  but  his  worst  could  not  have  been  very  bad. 
His  own  testimony,  that  he  was  so  moderate  in  food 
and  drink  that  he  took  them  like  medicine  and  that 
he  never  served  Venus,  for  he  found  no  time  for  such 
things,  must  be  given  some  weight.1  It  is  true  that 
rumors  reached  his  old  home  that  “he  did  nothing  but 
feast,  play  the  fool,  and  fall  in  love,”  and  that  he  was 
at  considerable  pains  to  contradict  them.2  On  the  other 
hand,  Robert  Gaguin,  a  man  of  sobriety  and  parts, 
praised  him  for  being  “religious  no  less  in  life  and  in 
speech  than  in  dress.”3  He  frequently  alludes  to  love- 
making  in  his  Colloquies  and  elsewhere;  but  whether 
any  of  his  anecdotes  are  based  on  personal  experience 
it  is  difficult  to  say.  On  the  face  of  it  the  most  com¬ 
promising  would  be  the  dialogue  between  a  youth  and 
a  harlot,  in  which  Sophronius  converts  Lucretia  to  a 
better  life.  But  this  dialogue,  realistic  as  it  is,  is  the 
best  proof  of  how  difficult  it  is  to  disentangle  personal 
reminiscences  from  dramatic  situations,  for  in  all  prob¬ 
ability  Erasmus  borrowed  the  plot  from  the  tenth- 
century  nun,  Hroswitha,  whose  dramas  were  popular 
in  his  day.4  More  damaging  is  the  remark  in  one  of 
the  Colloquies  that  the  best  way  to  learn  French  at 
Paris  is  from  the  little  women  of  the  place.5 

During  his  years  at  Paris  Erasmus  was  the  bosom 
friend  of  a  brilliant  but  notoriously  immoral  Italian 
humanist,  Faustus  Andrelinus,  “whose  lectures,”  as 

1  To  J.  Gaver,  March  i,  1524,  LB.  ep.  671. 

*  Allen,  ep.  83;  Nichols,  ep.  81.  Paris,  December  14,  1498.  If  this  epistle 
could  be  dated  one  year  later — and  the  date  is  uncertain — one  might  suspect 
Standonck  of  having  been  the  talebearer,  for  it  was  exactly  at  this  time  that 
he  returned  to  Cambrai.  Godet,  30. 

3  R.  Gaguin,  Epistola  et  Orationes ,  ed.  Thuasne,  1903  f,  i,  p.  25  f. 

4  Hrotswithae  Gandeshemensis  comoedias  sex ,  ed.  J.  Bendixen,  1862,  p.  93, 
No.  5.  “  Paphnutius.”  Paphnutius  the  hermit  visits  Thais  the  courtesan  as  a 
lover  and  converts  her.  On  contemporary  familiarity  with  Hroswitha,  Durer’s 
picture  reproduced  in  Klassiker  der  Kunst ,  p.  190.  The  dialogue,  LB.  i,  718. 

§  LB.  i,  634  f. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


29 


the  Dutchman  says,  “on  all  parts  of  the  poets,  even 
on  the  Priapeia ,  were  in  a  manner,  to  say  nothing 
worse,  truly  Faustine.”1  With  him  Erasmus  exchanged 
gay  notes  during  a  lecture,2  and  letters  on  the  kisses 
he  had  given  and  received.3  He  even  got  his  friend  to 
write  a  testimonial4  to  his  character  to  send  home. 
Andrelinus,  indeed,  cared  for  nothing  but  the  classics. 
Since  1489  he  had  taught  at  Paris,  and  his  lectures, 
rather  witty  than  learned,  had  attracted  large  crowds. 
He  was  accustomed  to  attack  theologians  very  bitterly.5 

Other  associates  of  Erasmus  were  more  respectable. 
To  one  of  the  leading  scholars  of  the  day,  Robert  Gaguin, 
he  had  a  letter  of  introduction  which  he  presented  soon 
after  his  arrival.6  Gaguin,  though  he  considered  Erasmus 
too  much  of  a  toady,  was  so  pleased  with  his  learning, 
his  style,  his  morals  and  piety,  that  he  asked  him  almost 
at  once  to  write  an  Introduction  to  his  History  of  France. 
Disregarding  his  new  friend’s  strictures  on  his  parasitic 
manners  the  young  man  discharged  the  obligation  with 
gusto,  heaping  both  the  author  of  the  book  and  his 
nation  with  fulsome  praise.7  Gaguin,  Faustus,  and 
Erasmus  soon  became  fast  friends.  The  French  historian 
has  left  an  epigram,  hitherto  unpublished,  testifying 
his  high  regard  for  the  other  two.8  It  was  written  on  the 
occasion  of  a  dinner  at  Gaguin’s  apartments,  and  may 
be  rendered  as  follows: 

Welcome,  O  Faustus,  bard  loved  by  Apollo; 

Welcome  no  less,  Erasmus,  who  dost  follow 
As  Faustus*  comrade.  Not  with  flowing  cup 
I  greet  you;  meagerly  must  poets  sup. 

1  Allen,  ep.  mi. 

4  Allen,  epp.  96-100;  Nichols,  epp.  88-92. 

8  Allen,  ep.  103;  Nichols,  ep.  98. 

4  Allen,  ep.  84;  Nichols,  ep.  79. 

8  Erasmus  to  Vives,  1519.  Allen,  ep.  1104.  On  Faustus,  see  his  Eclogues , 
ed.  by  W.  P.  Mustard,  1918. 

6  Allen,  epp.  43-44. 

7  Allen,  ep.  46,  October  7,  1495. 

8  British  Museum  MS.  Egerton  1651,  fol.  5.  For  text  see  Appendix  III. 


3° 


ERASMUS 


Though  Gaguin  thinks  you  worthy  better  meat 
And  even  of  banquets  such  as  high  gods  eat, 

You  see  no  feast  here,  but  a  friend’s  true  heart, 

And  home  of  friendly  fortune.  Small  the  part 
Of  furniture  and  dress  to  you  I  offer, 

But  all  my  heart  and  soul  instead  I  proffer. 

But  neither  theology  nor  pleasure  was  Erasmus’s 
deepest  interest  at  Paris.  As  previously,  his  study  and 
his  delight  was  the  literature  of  ancient  Rome.  He  also 
began  to  learn  Greek,  but  did  not  like  his  teacher  and 
did  not  advance  far.1  Besides  reading,  he  wrote  a  good 
deal  and  even  published  a  little.  One  of  the  first  things 
he  had  printed  was  a  collection  of  Odes  by  his  friend, 
William  Hermann  of  Gouda,  which  he  sent  to  his 
patron,  the  Bishop  of  Cambrai,  in  January,  1497,  with 
the  following  note:2 

I  am  giving  you  the  gift  of  another,  having  been  able  to  print 
nothing  myself  on  account  of  my  occupation  with  theological  studies, 
for  I  follow  the  advice  of  Jerome  to  learn  before  I  teach.  But  you 
may  shortly  expect  some  fruit  from  my  studies. 

While  at  Paris  Erasmus  apparently  received  some 
financial  help  from  the  Bishop  of  Cambrai,8  but  was 
forced  to  eke  out  his  substance  by  taking  pupils.  Among 
them  were  some  young  men  of  high  rank — a  son  of 
James  III  of  Scotland  who  became  Archbishop  of  St. 
Andrews  in  1497,  and  William  Blount,  Lord  Mountjoy, 
later  tutor  of  Henry  VIII.  Throughout  his  life  Mountjoy 
was  one  of  the  humanist’s  best  patrons.  Erasmus’s 
first  extant  letter  to  him  begins:  “Hail,  truly  named, 
‘mon  joie.’”4  Erasmus  had  no  modesty  about  pro¬ 
claiming  his  own  merits  as  a  teacher.  When  one  of 
his  pupils  requested  his  assistance  in  the  composition 
of  a  Latin  letter  to  his  brother,  the  humanist,  as  he 
acknowledges,  wrote  about  himself  in  these  terms:6 

1  Allen,  i,  p.  7. 

2  Allen,  ep.  51. 

3  So,  at  least,  Mr.  Allen  conjectures,  ep.  48. 

4  Allen,  ep.  79. 

*  Allen,  ep.  61;  partly  translated  by  Nichols,  ep.  55. 


APPRENTICE  YEARS 


3i 


After  dinner  Erasmus,  Augustine,  and  myself  took  a  stroll  in  the 
very  place  among  the  vineyards  where,  as  Erasmus  told  us,  he  had 
more  than  once  sauntered  with  you,  drunk  with  sweet  words,  while  he 
recalled  you  by  his  eloquent  exhortations  from  sordid  cares  and  rav¬ 
ished  your  whole  soul  with  love  of  letters.  Do  you  recognize  the  spot? 
There  Erasmus  fed  us  with  lettered  speech,  more  delicate  fare  than 
the  supper  we  had  eaten.  ...  It  seems  to  me  that  now  by  the 
blessing  of  the  saints,  the  supreme  good  has  fallen  to  me,  for  what 
could  I  pray  for  more  than  a  learned  and  friendly  teacher,  and  now 
I  have  the  most  learned  and  kindest  of  all;  I  mean  Erasmus  whom 
I  so  long  sought  in  vain.  Now  I  have  him  and  possess  him  all  to 
myself  and  delight  in  him  day  and  night.  What  do  you  say?  I 
hold  Helicon  itself  within  my  chamber  walls.  What  is  it  to  live 
among  the  choir  of  Muses  if  this  is  not  to  do  so? 

When  writers,  scholars,  and  artists  were  dependent 
on  a  patron  for  their  living,  there  was  danger  that  they 
would  be  tempted  to  flatter  this  individual;  just  as, 
now  that  they  are  dependent  on  the  reading  public, 
it  is  probable  that  they  are  induced  to  flatter  the  prej¬ 
udices  of  that  patron.  Neither  form  of  writing  for 
a  living  is  more  objectionable  than  the  other;  if  flattery 
is  used  it  is  disgraceful  not  from  the  object  on  which 
it  is  spent,  but  from  the  prostitution  that  it  implies 
of  noble  talents  to  a  base  end.  As  it  was  the  general 
custom  four  hundred  years  ago  for  literary  men  to 
receive  pensions  from  the  great,  the  fact  that  Erasmus 
received,  and  even  solicited,  such  favors,  calls  for  no 
apology.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  he  oc¬ 
casionally,  though  rarely,  carried  his  importunity  beyond 
the  bounds  of  decency. 

This  is  most  notable  in  his  relations  with  Anne  of 
Veere,  a  daughter  of  one  of  the  greatest  nobles  in  Holland 
and  widow  of  Philip  the  Bastard  of  Burgundy.1  She 
had  engaged  one  of  Erasmus’s  friends  to  tutor  her  son 
Adolph  and,  doubtless  at  his  invitation,  Erasmus  visited 
her  at  her  castle  of  Tournehem,  between  Calais  and 
St.  Omer.  Here  he  got  to  know  Adolph,  and  probably 


*On  Anne  of  Veere,  see  M.  P.  Roosenboom:  The  Scottish  Staple  in  the 
Netherlands ,  1910,  pp.  32  and  xliii. 


32 


ERASMUS 


put  in  his  Colloquy ,  “The  Shipwreck/’1  a  record  of 
some  personal  experience  of  the  young  man.  The 
kindness  and  courtesy  of  the  great  lady  aroused  hopes 
of  securing  from  her  money  for  a  projected  journey  to 
Italy.  For  the  next  few  years  the  young  Dutchman 
addressed  to  her  and  to  his  friend  Batt,  the  tutor  of 
her  son,  appeals  of  the  most  pressing  nature.  For 
example,  December  12,  1500,  he  wrote  to  the  latter:2 

Point  out  to  my  lady  how  much  more  credit  I  shall  do  her  by  my 
learning  than  the  other  divines  whom  she  maintains.  They  preach 
ordinary  sermons;  I  write  what  will  live  forever;  they,  with  their 
silly  rubbish,  are  heard  in  one  or  two  churches;  my  books  will  be 
read  by  all  who  know  Latin  and  Greek  in  every  country  in  the  world; 
such  unlearned  divines  abound  everywhere,  men  like  me  are  scarcely 
found  in  many  centuries.  Repeat  all  this  to  her  unless  you  are  too 
superstitious  to  tell  a  few  fibs  for  a  friend. 

Undiscouraged  by  the  cool  reception  of  this  promise 
of  immortality,  Erasmus  wrote  and  dedicated  to  the 
young  Prince  Adolph  an  Exhortation  to  Embrace  Virtue , 
where,  under  the  pretext  of  placing  before  his  eyes 
images  of  perfection,  the  author  heaped  upon  the 
little  lord,  upon  his  mother,  and  upon  his  tutor,  the 
most  fulsome  flattery.  Failing  to  realize  from  this 
also,  in  proportion  to  his  hopes,  the  irrepressible  suitor 
made  a  supreme  effort  and  addressed  his  hoped-for 
patroness  directly  in  an  epistle  comparing  her  with  two 
other  Annas,  the  mother  of  Samuel  and  the  sister  of 
Dido,  and  predicting  for  her  also  a  like  eternity  of 
glory.  He  capped  the  climax  of  this  ungracious  pro¬ 
ceeding  by  writing  at  the  same  time  to  Batt  that  he 
had  never  penned  anything  with  so  much  repugnance 
as  this  parasitic  flattery,  and  by  heartily  abusing  Anne 
of  Veere  behind  her  back.3 

1  LB.  i,  712. 

2  Allen,  ep.  139;  Nichols,  ep.  139. 

8  Allen,  ep.  146;  Nichols,  ep.  140. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY:  THE  CLASSICS  AND  THE 

GOSPEL 

THERE  was  nothing  precocious  about  the  genius 
of  Erasmus.  When  he  was  thirty  he  had  pro¬ 
duced  hardly  anything.  Had  he  died  at  the  age  of 
forty  he  would  scarce  be  remembered  now.  The  pro¬ 
digious  success  of  his  Folly ,  of  his  New  Testament, 
of  his  Paraphrases ,  of  his  Colloquies ,  of  his  Epistles ,  not 
only  raised  his  fame  among  his  contemporaries  and 
posterity,  but  cast  a  reflex  luster  on  his  earlier  works. 
In  these,  however,  his  deepest  interest,  the  restoration 
of  antiquity  both  classic  and  Christian,  had  already 
found  expression.  And  even  these  early  works  met 
with  a  hearty  reception  from  contemporaries  to  whom 
these  interests  were  vital. 

For  it  was  just  because  Erasmus  so  perfectly  ex¬ 
pressed  the  spirit  of  his  time  that  he  gradually  won 
the  international  reputation  that  all  but  made  him 
arbiter  of  the  great  questions  which  arose  with  the 
Reformation  and  cried  for  authoritative  judgment. 
Erasmus  came  at  the  acme  of  the  Renaissance,  when 
humanism  had  gathered  its  full  force  and  reached  its 
maturity,  but  before  it  had  begun  to  wither  in  the 
fierce  heats  of  confessional  controversy  and  the  drought 
of  too  academic,  too  remote,  too  fastidiously  exclusive 
an  interest.  In  his  last  years  he  was  to  see  and  to 
attack  the  absurdities  of  a  classicism  become  a  mania, 
an  obsession  for  the  antique,  a  haughty  assertion  of 
superiority  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  But  in  his  prime 
he  saw  and  shared  the  glow  of  enthusiasm  for  the  full 
revival  of  Greek  and  Latin  letters.  He  also  had  the 


33 


34 


ERASMUS 


genius  to  combine  into  one  stream  the  two  contending 
currents  of  pagan  and  of  Christian  antiquity.  For  him 
the  Gospel  was  the  “philosophy  of  Christ,”  and  the 
philosophy  of  the  Greeks  a  natural  gospel.  When  he 
read  Cicero  he  reflected:  “A  heathen  wrote  this  to 
heathen,  and  yet  his  moral  principles  have  justice, 
sanctity,  sincerity,  truth,  fidelity  to  nature;  nothing 
false  or  careless  is  in  them.”1  “When  I  read  certain 
passages  of  these  great  men,”  he  confessed  again,  “I  can 
hardly  refrain  from  saying,  ‘St.  Socrates,  pray  for  me/”2 
Erasmus's  great  success  in  Christianizing  the  Ren¬ 
aissance  was  due  partly  to  the  narrowness  of  his 
interests.  There  were  sides  of  life  cultivated  by  his 
generation  with  enthusiasm  and  consummate  ability, 
which  hardly  came  into  his  purview  at  all.  The  most 
glorious  artists  of  the  whole  world — Leonardo  and 
Titian,  Michelangelo  and  Raphael,  San  Gallo  and 
Bramante — were  his  contemporaries,  and  he  had  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  see  their  works,  but  not  once,  I  believe,  does 
he  mention  any  of  them  in  his  pages.  With  Matsys, 
Diirer,  and  Holbein  he  came  into  personal  contact, 
but  hardly  noticed  their  art.  Again,  a  new  world  was 
discovered  during  his  lifetime.  In  his  youth  Columbus 
found  America  and  Vasco  da  Gama  broke  the  path 
around  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  to  India;  in  his  man¬ 
hood  Cortez  and  Pizarro  and  Balboa  and  De  Soto 
enacted  romances  of  discovery  and  conquest  that  would 
be  thought  too  wonderful  for  fiction,  and  Magellan  put 
a  girdle  around  the  earth.  These  triumphs  fired  the 
imagination  of  contemporaries,  of  More  and  Camoens,  of 
Ariosto  and  Rabelais;  the  tales  of  Amerigo  Vespucci 
were  sought  and  eagerly  read  by  Beatus  Rhenanus3 
and  Eck4  and  Vadian;  but  Erasmus,  though  he  met 

1  Preface  to  Cicero’s  De  Officiis ,  September  io,  1519.  Allen,  ep.  1013. 

1  Convivium  religiosum,  LB.  i,  683. 

3  There  is  extant  a  copy  of  Waldseemiiller’s  Cosviography  with  the  name  of 
Beatus  Rhenanus  written  in.  See  the  facsimile  by  Wieser,  1907. 

4  Allen:  Age  of  Erasmus ,  p.  92.  And  see  Eck’s  edition  of  Aristotle  in  the 
Cornell  library. 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY  35 

the  son  of  Columbus  in  1520,  hardly  let  an  allusion  to 
the  New  World  pass  his  pen. 

Then,  again,  he  had  no  interest  in  science.  While 
Leonardo  was  experimenting  in  anatomy  and  physics 
and  accumulating  facts  about  geology  and  astronomy, 
while  Copernicus1  was  working  out  the  most  momentous 
discovery  that  has  ever  dawned  upon  the  human  mind, 
while  Vives,2  who  was  well  known  to  Erasmus,  was 
stating  that  men  should  no  longer  rely  on  authority 
but  should  look  at  nature  for  themselves,  the  attitude 
of  Erasmus  was  intensely  conservative.  Like  Socrates, 
he  not  only  did  not  care  for  natural  science,  he  actively 
disliked  it  as  leading  men's  thoughts  away  from  the 
more  important  problems  of  moral  philosophy.8 

Nor  did  he  have  attention  to  spare  for  beautiful 
scenery,  nor  for  the  common  life  of  men  as  seen  in  their 
cities  and  country  homes.  He  visited  many  parts  of 
England,  of  France,  of  Italy,  of  Germany,  of  Switzer¬ 
land,  and  of  the  Netherlands,  but  in  all  his  works  there 
are  but  one  or  two  notable  descriptions  of  town  or 
country.  How  much  he  might  have  told  us  of  Paris  and 
London,  of  Venice  and  Rome  and  Naples,  of  the  Swiss 
passes,  and  of  the  Rhine! 

But,  after  all,  to  point  out  these  limitations  is  only 
to  say  that  Erasmus  was  Erasmus  and  not  somebody 
else.  The  very  concentration  of  his  mental  life  was 
doubtless  one  cause  of  the  consummate  mastery  he 
displayed  in  his  chosen  field.  As  a  scholar,  as  a  stylist, 
as  a  thoughtful  and  popular  "writer  on  religion  and 
education,  he  has  had  few  equals.  His  work  centers 
around  a  few  ideas,  the  principal  ones  expressed  in 
phrases  that  recur  over  and  over  again  in  all  his  writings, 

1  Copernicus  was  in  Italy  just  before  Erasmus  was  there,  and  he  knew  one 
of  Erasmus’s  friends,  Celio  Calcagnini,  who,  under  his  influence,  wrote,  about 
1520,  a  treatise  Quod  cesium  stet,  terra  moveatur.  Copernicus  did  not  publish 
his  own  great  work  until  1543,  but  he  had  arrived  at  his  conclusions  long 
before,  and  they  were  talked  of  in  the  learned  world.  On  Calcagnini,  Allen, 
iii,  p.  26. 

*  A.  Bonilla  y  San  Martin:  Luis  Vives  y  la  filosofia  del  renacimiento,  1903. 

*  Erasmus  to  Carondilet,  January  5,  1522,  LB.  ep.  613. 


ERASMUS 


3  6 

like  the  leitmotifs  of  a  symphony,  “good  literature,” 
“the  philosophy  of  Christ,”  “peace/’ 

His  first  ideal  was  that  of  culture  founded  on  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  classics.  His  mastery  of 
Latin  literature  was  imperial.  Doubtless  he  heard, 
as  a  boy  and  a  young  man,  of  the  first  publication  of 
many  Latin  authors,  and  the  zest  of  new  discovery 
was  added  to  the  imperishable  charm  of  the  poets  and 
orators.  Before  Erasmus  went  to  school  at  Deventer 
there  had  already  been  printed  much  of  Cicero,  Lactan- 
tius,  Apuleius,  Aulus  Gellius,  Caesar,  Lucan,  Pliny, 
Vergil,  Livy,  Sallust,  Juvenal,  Persius,  Quintilian, 
Suetonius,  Terence,  Tacitus,  Ovid,  Horace,  Martial, 
Plautus,  Tibullus,  Catullus,  Propertius,  Statius,  Lucre¬ 
tius,  and  Seneca.1  But  few  of  these  were  complete; 
fresh  portions  of  their  works  kept  coming  out  later, 
as  did  Tacitus’s  Annals  i-j .2  New  minor  authors  ap¬ 
peared  from  time  to  time.  Erasmus  was  therefore  able 
to  command  the  bulk  of  Latin  literature  in  printed  form. 
He  shared  his  contemporaries’  enthusiasm  for  manu¬ 
scripts  and  eagerly  sought  new  ones  himself.  Thus 
he  wrote  to  the  College  of  Canons  at  Metz,  asking  for 
a  catalogue  of  their  noble  collection.3  In  later  life  he 
edited  a  number  of  Latin  and  Greek  classics. 

In  the  latter  half  of  1499  Erasmus  made  a  visit  to 
England.  On  his  return  to  Paris  his  first  enterprise 
was  the  compilation  of  a  work  which  was  to  prove  one 
of  his  greatest  immediate  successes,  his  book  of  Adages 
or  Familiar  Quotations  from  the  Classics.  Soon  after 
his  arrival  he  was  laid  up  for  a  time  with  an  attack  of 
fever  for  which  he  blamed  his  new  lodgings.  He  called 
in  the  services  of  a  friend  and  “devotee  of  the  Muses,” 
one  William  Cop,  a  native  of  Basle,  then  physician  to 
the  German  nation  in  the  University  of  Paris.  The 
skill  of  Cop  and  the  power  of  St.  Genevieve  had  cured 


1  Sir  J.  Edwin  Sandys:  History  of  Classical  Scholarship ,  ii,  1908,  p.  103. 

2  Which  appeared  in  1515. 

*  Louvain,  July  14,  1519;  Allen,  ep.  997. 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY  37 

him  of  a  similar  attack  three  years  earlier  and  again 
their  combined  ministrations  slowly  restored  him  to 
health.1  However,  Cop  forbade  serious  writing  or 
study  during  his  convalescence,  and  in  search  for  an 
occupation  Erasmus  took  to  browsing  around  among 
his  favorite  authors  with  all  the  more  zest,  perhaps, 
that  he  had  had  less  time  than  usual  for  reading  in 
England.  There  was  no  large  library  within  reach, 
he  was  still  unable  to  make  much  headway  with  Greek,2 
but  he  had  with  him  the  familiar  Latins.  His  friend 
Gaguin  lent  him  Quintilian,  Macrobius,  and  the  Rhetoric 
of  George  of  Trebizond,  which  he  wished  to  see.3  In 
March  he  writes  that  he  is  deep  in  his  books,  quite 
happy,  evidently,  except  for  the  annoying  scarcity 
of  money: 

Do  you  want  to  know  what  I  am  doing?  I  devote  myself  to  my 
friends,  with  whom  I  enjoy  the  most  delightful  intercourse.  .  .  . 
With  them  I  shut  myself  in  a  corner,  where  I  escape  the  windy 
crowd  and  either  speak  to  them  in  sweet  whispers  or  listen  to  their 
gentle  voices,  conversing  with  them  as  with  myself.  Can  anything 
be  more  comfortable  than  this?  They  never  hide  their  own  secrets, 
yet  they  keep  sacred  whatever  is  intrusted  to  them.  They  never 
divulge  abroad  what  we  confide  freely  to  their  intimacy.  When 
summoned  they  are  at  your  side;  when  not  summoned  they  do  not 
intrude.  When  bidden  they  speak;  when  not  bidden  they  are 
silent.  They  talk  of  what  you  wish,  as  much  as  you  wish,  as  long 
as  you  wish.  They  utter  no  flattery,  feign  nothing,  keep  back  nothing. 
They  frankly  show  you  your  faults,  but  slander  no  one.  All  that 
they  say  is  either  cheering  or  salutary.  In  prosperity  they  keep 
you  modest,  in  affliction  they  console,  they  never  change  with  fortune. 

1  Allen,  ep.  124;  I,  p.  286.  Cop  studied  Greek  at  Paris  under  Lascaris, 
Erasmus,  and  Aleander,  and  later  published  translations  from  Hippocrates 
and  Galen.  He  was  also  a  physician  of  great  repute.  LeFevre  d’£taples  says 
that  he  cured  him  of  sleeplessness.  Erasmus,  however,  speaks  not  altogether 
lightly  of  the  part  played  by  Ste.  Genevieve  in  his  recovery.  “If  I  should  have 
a  second  attack  of  this  fever,  it  would  be  all  up  with  your  Erasmus,  my  Batt. 
Nevertheless  we  keep  up  hope,  relying  on  Ste.  Genevieve,  whose  ready  aid 
has  delivered  us  now  the  second  time.”  Allen,  ibid.,  and  ep.  50;  I,  pp.  164-165. 

2  In  September,  1500,  he  writes  that  he  cannot  read  a  copy  of  Homer, 
temporarily  in  his  possession,  but  that  he  finds  comfort  in  the  mere  look  of  it. 
Allen,  ep.  13 1;  I,  p.  305. 

3  Allen,  epp.  121,  122;  I,  pp.  283,  284;  Nichols,  epp.  114,  115. 


ERASMUS 


38 

They  follow  in  all  dangers,  abiding  with  you  even  to  the  grave. 
.  .  .  With  these  sweet  friends  I  am  buried  in  seclusion.  What 
wealth  or  what  scepters  would  I  barter  for  this  tranquillity?  Now, 
that  you  may  not  miss  the  meaning  of  my  metaphor,  pray  under¬ 
stand  all  that  I  have  said  about  these  friends  to  be  meant  of  books, 
companionship  with  which  has  made  of  me  a  truly  happy  man.1 

In  this  situation  the  idea  occurred  to  Erasmus  of 
culling  from  the  pages  of  these  authors  a  selection  of 
brief  sayings  or  epigrams,  useful  for  quotation.  The 
task  seemed  to  him  a  light  and  agreeable  one,  not  the 
tax  upon  his  strength  that  one  of  his  more  ambitious 
projects  would  have  been.  The  book,  when  completed, 
would  be  an  attractive  gift  to  dedicate  to  one  of  the 
wealthy  patrons  whose  interest  in  him  it  was  just  now 
so  important  to  keep  warm.  He  hesitated  a  little 
between  young  Adolph  of  Veere  and  Lord  Mountjoy, 
deciding  finally  in  favor  of  the  latter.2  The  fashion 
of  quoting  from  the  Greek  and  Latin  classics  has  dis¬ 
appeared  in  our  day,  whether  the  disappearance  be 
due  to  an  improvement  in  literary  taste  or  to  a  decline 
of  polite  learning.  We  rarely  see  any  longer  the  old- 
fashioned  English  gentleman  who  used  to  cap  his 
remarks  with  a  line  from  Vergil  or  Horace.  We  can, 
therefore,  hardly  realize  how  excessively  in  Erasmus's 
time  a  knack  at  quoting  was  admired  nor  what  elegance 
and  weight  were  added  to  any  composition  by  the  use 
of  examples  and  citations  from  ancient  literature. 
The  Prince  of  Machiavelli,  the  Essays  of  Montaigne, 
both  written  during  this  period,  are  famous  illustrations 
of  the  practice.  Their  continual  references  to  the  classics 
serve  for  us  merely  to  invest  with  a  quaint  and  pedantic 


1  Allen,  ep.  125;  I,  pp.  288-289;  Nichols,  ep.  119.  A  distinguished  con¬ 
temporary  of  Erasmus  had  a  similar  feeling  for  his  books.  See  Machiavelli, 
Opere ,  ep.  26;  English  translation  in  Villari,  Life  and  Times  of  Machiavelli , 
p.  159.  Erasmus  may  have  been  recalling  the  celebrated  passage  in  Cicero’s 

Pro  Archia. 

2  Erasmus  composed  a  tentative  draft  of  a  dedication  which  he  did  not  use. 
He  omitted  all  names,  but  internal  evidence  seems  to  indicate  that  it  was 
meant  for  Adolph  of  Veere.  At  the  last  moment  he  wrote  his  dedication  to 
Mountjoy.  Allen,  epp.  125,  126,  21 1;  pp.  288,  289,  443. 


39 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY 

atmosphere  the  authors’  keen  and  radical  philosophies 
of  life.  We  tolerate  the  references  for  the  sake  of  the 
rest.  But  to  the  writers  themselves  their  literary 
authorities  were  a  serious  matter,  as  essential  parts  of 
their  arguments  as  their  own  shrewd  observations  upon 
mankind.  Men  of  less  genius  than  Machiavelli  or 
Montaigne  or  Erasmus  depended  largely  upon  a  choice 
array  of  classical  allusions  to  obtain  for  themselves 
any  sort  of  hearing.  For  them,  for  the  whole  world 
of  scholars  and  cultivated  gentlemen,  a  convenient 
manual  of  effective  quotations  would  be  a  labor-saving 
device  of  priceless  value.  An  Italian,  Polydore  Vergil 
of  Urbino,  had  published  a  book  of  Proverbs  at  Venice 
in  1498,  but  it  was  a  comparatively  small  and  simple 
affair,  not  yet  in  wide  circulation.  Erasmus  seems  not 
to  have  known  of  its  existence  at  this  time.  Later, 
Vergil  and  his  friends  accused  the  Dutchman  of  plagiariz¬ 
ing,  and  he  was  obliged  to  defend  himself.  His  relations 
with  the  historian  were  temporarily  ruffled,  though 
they  finally  became  friendly  again  and  Erasmus  assisted 
in  the  publication  of  Vergil’s  lesser  works.1 

In  the  preface  to  the  first  edition  of  his  Adagia ,  never¬ 
theless,  Erasmus  felt  called  upon  to  justify  his  under¬ 
taking.  The  book  soon  needed  no  defense  for  its 
appearance  and  no  explanation  of  its  utility,  but  in  the 
beginning  he  was  anxious  to  prove  its  worth. 

What  is  such  an  aid  either  in  gracing  a  speech  with  a  delicate 
air  of  festivity  or  in  enlivening  it  with  learned  jests  or  in  seasoning 
it  with  the  salt  of  urbanity  or  in  adorning  it  with  gems  of  translation 
or  in  illuminating  it  with  the  brilliancy  of  epigrams  or  in  diversifying 
it  with  the  flowers  of  allegory  and  allusion  or  in  investing  it  with 
the  charm  of  antiquity  as  a  rich  and  full  supply  of  these  adages, 
like  a  storeroom  built  at  home  and  well  supplied?  For  everyone 
knows  that  the  chief  wealth  and  refinements  of  speech  consist  of 
epigrams,  metaphors,  parables,  examples,  illustrations,  similes, 
images,  and  figures  of  this  sort.  .  .  .  Everyone  also  enjoys  hearing 

1  Nichols,  I,  p.  242.  Also  Erasmus  to  Vergil,  Louvain,  December  23,  1520, 
Allen,  ep.  1175.  Vergil  to  Erasmus,  June  3,  1523,  in  S.  A.  Gabbema;  Illus- 
trium  et  Clarorum  Virorum  Epistola ,  No.  3;  Erasmus  to  Pace,  June  II,  1521, 
Allen,  ep.  1210. 


40 


ERASMUS 


what  he  recognizes,  especially  if  it  has  the  sanction  of  antiquity; 
so  adages,  like  wine,  increase  in  value  with  age.  .  .  . 

You  might  think  that  I  was  saying  all  this  from  love  of  my  own 
work  were  not  the  truth  conspicuous  in  every  class  of  author,  that 
whoever  has  especially  excelled  his  fellows  has  especially  delighted 
in  these  adages.  In  the  first  place,  what  has  the  wrorld  richer  than 
the  language  of  Plato  or  more  heavenly  than  his  philosophy?  But 
in  his  dialogues  on  every  subject,  good  Lord!  the  proverbs  are 
scattered  thick  as  little  stars,  so  that  no  comedy  gives  me  such 
pleasure  as  the  dialectic  of  this  philosopher.  Then  Plautus,  the 
peculiar  darling  of  the  theater,  bubbles  over  with  proverbs  and 
says  hardly  anything  that  he  did  not  take  from  the  mouths  of  the 
common  people  or  that  did  not  pass  at  once  from  the  stage  into 
their  common  talk,  so  that  for  this  talent  above  all  he  deserves  to 
be  ranked  in  eloquence  with  the  Muses.  Terence  has  more  art  than 
Plautus  and  therefore  uses  proverbs  less  frequently  but  more  fastidi¬ 
ously.  Did  not  Varro,  the  greatest  of  scholars,  find  such  satisfaction 
in  proverbs  that  he  sought  no  other  arguments  or  headings  for  his 
satires?  From  his  work  the  following  are  still  quoted:  The  ass  at 
the  lyre;  Know  thyself;  Old  men  are  in  their  second  childhood.  .  .  . 

But  if,  as  Christians,  we  prefer  Christian  examples,  I  can  easily 
adduce  Jerome  as  one  of  many.  .  .  .  His  books  contain  more  prov¬ 
erbs  than  even  the  comedies  of  Menander,  and  clever  ones,  such 
as:  He  leads  the  bull  to  the  combat;  The  camel  danced;  Blunt 
wedges  rive  hard  knots;  Diamond  cuts  diamond;  The  tired  ox 
plants  his  feet  more  firmly;  The  lid  is  worthy  of  the  dish.  .  .  . 
There  are  adages  even  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  (You  are  not, 
I  suppose,  so  engrossed  with  Scotus  as  never  to  glance  at  them.) 
Adages  occur  often  even  in  the  Gospels,  namely,  these:  The  dog  re¬ 
turned  to  his  vomit;  The  sow  wallowing  in  her  mire;  Beating  the 
air:  Tinkling  cymbal;  We  have  piped  unto  you  and  ye  have  not 
danced;  The  mote  and  the  beam;  A  stone  for  bread.  .  .  .  Wherefore  for 
many  reasons  we  have  thought  it  no  futile  or  sterile  task  to  instruct 
studious  youth  to  the  best  of  our  ability  in  this  mode  of  speech 
or  at  least  to  instigate  them  to  it,  seeing  that  it  has  been  adopted 
with  good  cause  by  so  many  learned  and  divine  writers.1 

The  kernel  of  Erasmus’s  book  was  a  compilation  of 
pithy  sayings  culled  from  the  ancients.  With  these  he 
incorporated  a  certain  number  of  more  recent  proverbial 
phrases,  including  about  a  hundred  of  German  origin,2 

1  Dedicatory  epistle  to  first  edition.  Allen,  ep.  126;  pp.  291-295. 

2  Adagiorum  Collectanea;  on  this  see  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  s.  v.  and  J.  Eise- 
lein:  Die  Sprichzvdrter  und  Sinnreden  des  deutschen  Volkes  in  alter  und  neuer 
Zeit,  i860,  p.  xxviii,  note. 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY  41 

though  all,  of  course,  were  given  only  in  the  Latin  form. 
The  first  edition,  published  by  John  Philip  of  Kreuznach, 
at  Paris,  in  June,  1500,  contained  818  adages,  each  with 
a  commentary,  usually  very  short.  The  first  two  proverbs 
are  on  friendship,  “Friends  have  all  things  in  common,” 
and  “A  friend  is  another  self,”1  the  notes  giving  illustra¬ 
tive  material  from  Terence,  Menander,  Cicero,  Aulus 
Gellius,  Plato,  Socrates,  and  Plutarch.  Marvelous  speci¬ 
mens  of  erudition  they  were  in  that  age  before  diction¬ 
aries  and  concordances  had  made  reference  easy.  Richard 
Burton  could  hardly  display  more  learning  over  a  trifle 
in  his  Anatomy  of  Melancholy  than  did  Erasmus  in  his 
Adages.  And  yet  Gaguin  seems  to  have  criticized  the 
notes  as  too  formal  and  lifeless.2  Erasmus,  therefore,  set 
about  collecting  material  for  a  new  edition.  He  doubtless 
followed  the  practice  himself,  which  he  recommended  to 
a  friend,  of  keeping  a  commonplace  book  for  the  notation 
of  striking  sayings  met  with  in  the  course  of  reading. 

Various  editions,  slightly  enlarged,  were  published 
during  the  next  few  years,  but  a  completely  new  form  was 
given  to  the  book  by  the  immense  increase  in  size  of  the 
edition  published  by  Aldo  at  Venice  in  September,  1508, 
with  the  changed  title,  Adagiorum  Chiliades .3  It  con¬ 
tained  in  all  3,260  adages,  and  the  treatment  of  those 
taken  over  from  the  first  edition  was  so  altered  as  to  make 
the  Venetian  work  almost  altogether  new.  Some  old 
proverbs  were  suppressed,  the  order  of  others  changed,  and 
the  commentary  greatly  expanded.  Erasmus  had  sought 
Italy  largely  with  a  view  to  doing  this  work,  and  he  was 
enabled  to  accomplish  it  because  he  was  now  more  fluent 
in  Greek  and  more  forward  to  speak  his  mind,  and  because 
of  the  exceptional  facilities  he  found  at  Venice  in  the  way 
of  access  to  books.  Of  all  this  he  has  left  an  account  in 
his  commentary  on  the  adage  “  Festina  lente ,”4  which 


1  LB.  i,  cols.  13  ff. 

*  LB.  x,  p.  200. 

*  Biblioiheca  Erasmiana. 

4  LB.  ii,  403  ff;  Chil.  ii,  centuria  i,  prov.  I. 


42  ERASMUS 

first  appeared  in  the  edition  published  by  Froben  in  1526. 
He  says: 

Aldo  was  then  making  a  library  whose  only  limits  should  be 
those  of  the  world.  .  .  .  Venice,  famous  on  many  accounts,  is 
most  famous  because  of  the  Aldine  press,  so  that  whatever  book 
is  printed  there  can  easily  be  sold,  whatever  its  origin.  While  I, 
a  Dutchman,  was  editing  my  Adages  in  Italy,  many  learned  men  there 
of  their  own  accord  offered  me  authors  not  yet  published,  which 
they  thought  would  be  of  use  to  me.  Aldo  had  nothing  in  his  treasury 
which  he  did  not  let  me  see.  John  Lascaris,  Baptista  Egnatius, 
Marcus  Musurus,  Brother  Urban,  all  did  the  same.  Even  men  I 
did  not  know  personally  helped  me.  .  .  .  The  whole  business  was 
finished  in  about  nine  months,  though  meanwhile  I  was  suffering 
seriously  from  the  stone,  my  first  experience  of  it.  See  now  how 
much  the  book  would  have  lost  if  those  learned  gentlemen  had 
not  lent  me  their  manuscripts!  Among  them  were  the  works  of 
Plato  in  Greek,  Plutarch’s  Lives  and  Moralia ,  of  which  the  printing 
was  begun  just  as  I  finished  my  enterprise,  the  Dipnosophistce  of 
Athenaeus,  Aphthonius,  Hermogenes  with  a  commentary,  the  whole 
of  Aristides  with  scholia,  brief  commentaries  on  Hesiod  and  The¬ 
ocritus,  Eustathius  on  the  whole  of  Homer,  Pausanias,  Pindar 
with  a  set  of  careful  notes,  a  collection  of  proverbs  ascribed  to  Plu¬ 
tarch,  another  ascribed  to  Apostolius.  Jerome  Aleander  supplied 
me  with  the  last-named  volume.  There  were  other  smaller  books 
which  I  either  do  not  remember  or  do  not  consider  important  to 
mention  here.  No  one  of  them  at  all  had  at  that  time  been  printed. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  Adages  in  its  new  form  let  us  take 
the  following: 

EVIL  COMMUNICATIONS  CORRUPT  GOOD  MANNERS 

This  is  the  meaning  of  that  verse  of  Menander  which  the  apostle 
St.  Paul  did  not  disdain  to  quote  in  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
— fydeipova/v  i]&ri  ofuMai  Kauai — that  is,  Wicked  companionship 

mars  good  manners.  Tertullian  translated  the  Greek  line  for  his 
wife,  but  freely,  after  the  manner  of  Latin  comedy.  “Choose,” 
he  says,  “associations  and  relationships  worthy  of  God,  remembering 
the  verse  sanctified  by  the  apostle,  Wrong  companions  corrupt  good 
manners.”  Aristotle  has  a  sentiment  like  this  in  the  ninth  book 
of  the  EthicSy  and  his  line  is  famous  among  the  Greeks, — Ka/coZf  dfuAuv 
KavroQ  kK^aTj  mKdg — that  is,  If  you  live  with  evil-doers  you  will 
yourself  become  evil.  Although  it  may  appear  foreign  to  my 
undertaking  to  include  so  much,  I  still  cannot  refrain  from 
adding  the  following  passage  from  Seneca,  On  Anger ,  book  3. 
If  it  does  not  assist  much  in  the  explanation  of  the  proverb,  it 


43 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY 

is  certainly  pertinent  to  the  ordering  of  life.  “Manners,”  he  says, 
“are  derived  from  one’s  associates.  And  just  as  infections  pass 
by  bodily  contact  from  one  person  to  another,  so  one  heart  trans¬ 
mits  its  evil  to  its  neighbors.  A  drunkard  inspires  his  com¬ 
rades  with  a  craving  for  wine.  The  companionship  of  sensualists 
weakens  a  man  even  if  he  be  strong.  Avarice  spreads  contagion 
among  those  who  see  it.  The  same  rule,  on  the  other  hand,  is  true 
of  the  virtues,  for  they  brighten  everything  about  them.  Nor  do 
a  healthful*  land  and  a  salubrious  climate  profit  the  sick  more  than 
association  with  the  upright  the  feeble  of  soul.  This  truth  you  will 
appreciate,  as  far  as  that  is  possible,  if  you  observe  how  wild  animals 
grow  tame  by  living  with  us  and  how  every  fierce  beast  loses  its 
violence  by  long  dwelling  in  the  habitation  of  men.”  Thus  far 
I  have  repeated  the  words  of  Seneca.  Moreover,  while  every  form 
of  contact  and  intercourse  has  a  great  effect  in  reforming  or  depraving 
the  disposition  of  mortals,  speech  is  the  most  influential  of  all,  for 
it  rises  from  the  secret  recesses  of  the  soul  and  carries  with  it  a  two¬ 
fold  and  mysterious  force  or  (to  express  it  better  in  Greek)  hepysiav, 
which  it  discharges  within  the  mind  of  the  hearer  into  which  it 
penetrates,  an  instantaneous  poison  if  it  be  baneful,  an  efficacious 
remedy  if  it  be  wholesome.  Indeed,  I  do  not  remember  reading  as 
yet  any  other  dictum  of  the  philosophers  which  seems  to  me  com¬ 
parable  with  the  favorite  saying  of  my  John  Colet,  a  man  both 
learned  and  incorruptible.  “Our  character  is  that  of  our  daily 
conversation;  we  grow  like  what  we  are  accustomed  to  hear.” 
Now  the  same  that  is  said  of  conversation  is  true  also  of  studies. 
They  who  spend  all  their  lives  on  pagan  literature  become  them¬ 
selves  irreligious.  They  who  read  nothing  but  unclean  authors 
must  themselves  in  their  own  habits  become  unclean.  For  reading 
is  a  kind  of  conversation.1 

A  further  edition,  once  more  remodeled  and  augmented, 
was  published  by  Froben  in  1515.2  Of  it  Erasmus  says: 

For  this  redaction  I  had  more  leisure  and  a  more  considerable 
library,  thanks  to  the  amazing  kindness  of  Archbishop  Warham. 
I  was  able  to  review  my  work  from  beginning  to  end,  to  correct 
numerous  misprints,  to  complete  the  translation  of  Greek  terms,  to 
add  a  more  copious  commentary,  and  to  supply  the  name  of  the 
author  where  it  had  been  omitted. 

This  edition  contained  3,411  adages;  among  the  151  new 
were  three  which  became  famous,  and  which  were  often 
reprinted  separately,  as  they  were  little  short  of  essays  in 

1  Adagia;  Chil.  I,  cent,  x,  74;  LB.  i,  col.  388. 

2  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana. 


44 


ERASMUS 


length  and  form.  The  first  of  these  was  the  Dulce  Bellum 
Inexpertis ,  with  its  commentary1  (which  had,  indeed, 
appeared  in  embryonic  form  earlier),  a  tract  on  the 
evils  of  war.  The  second  was  the  Scarabceus  qucerit 
aquilam ,2  or  “The  beetle  seeks  the  eagle.”  Beginning  as 
a  treatise  on  impotent  envy,  it  contained  a  good  deal  of 
political  and  antimonarchical  doctrine.  The  third,  the 
Sileni  Alcibiadis ,3  discoursed  on  the  deceptiveness  of 
appearances. 

Later  editions  kept  appearing  at  frequent  intervals, 
each  one  a  little  augmented.  Among  the  notable  addi¬ 
tions  made  to  the  redaction  of  1526  was  the  proverb, 
“Make  haste  slowly,”  with  a  commentary  of  four  folio 
pages  of  reminiscent  discourse,  from  which  we  have 
already  quoted,  much  of  it  curious  and  interesting  reading 
enough,  though  wandering  far  from  the  text.  This 
maxim,  Erasmus  begins  by  saying,  had  a  peculiar  value 
for  princes,  having  been  quoted  by  Achilles,  Sardan- 
apalus,  Fabius  Maximus,  and  Augustus: 

And  that  it  appealed  also  to  Titus  Vespasian  may  easily  be  deduced 
from  the  antique  coins  struck  by  him.  Aldo  Manuzio  showed  me 
a  silver  coin  clearly  of  ancient  Roman  workmanship,  which  he  said 
had  been  sent  him  as  a  gift  by  Peter  Bembo,  the  patrician  of  Venice, 
a  young  man,  but  one  of  our  foremost  scholars  and  an  eager  student 
of  all  ancient  literature.  On  one  side  of  the  coin  was  stamped  the 
head  of  Titus  Vespasian  with  the  inscription,  on  the  other  side  an 
anchor  with  a  dolphinjvound  about  the  shaft. 

After  a  considerable  digression  on  the  nature  and 
history  of  literary  symbols  and  hieroglyphics  Erasmus 

1  LB.  i,  951  ff. 

2  LB.  i,  869  ff. 

3  LB.  i,  770  ff.  There  is  at  Cornell  University  an  old  English  translation  of 
this  not  known  to  the  editors  of  the  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana.  The  title  reads, 
“Here  folowith  a  scorneful  Image  or  monstrous  shape  of  a  maruelous  strange 
fygure  called  Sileni  alcibiadis.  .  .  Imprinted  at  London  by  me  John  Gough.” 
No  date  is  given,  but  the  tract  is  bound  with  another,  evidently  from 
the  same  press,  a  translation  of  Luther’s  “Worke  made  agaynst  the  false 
canonisacyon  of  Benno  the  bysshoppe.  Translated  and  prynted  in  Englyssche 
in  the  year  MCCCCCxxxiiii.”  Neither  Luther’s  name  nor  that  of  the  trans¬ 
lator  is  mentioned.  Other  instances  are  known  in  which  Luther’s  opinions 
were  introduced  thus  anonymously  into  England. 


45 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY 

remarks  that  Suidas  reproduces  the  same  device,  and 
explains  it  by  saying  that  the  anchor,  since  it  holds  the 
ship,  means  delay,  whereas  the  dolphin  signifies  speed; 
therefore  the  combination  of  the  two  expresses  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  proverb,  “Make  haste  slowly.” 

The  mention  of  Aldo,  and  of  the  symbol  which  he  had 
made  his  trade-mark,  leads  the  author  to  add  a  few 
words  of  appreciation  of  the  great  publisher: 

If  some  divinity  who  is  a  friend  to  good  letters  regards  favorably 
the  noble  and  almost  kingly  vows  of  our  Aldo,  and  if  the  fates  are 
propitious,  I  promise  scholars  that  within  a  few  years  they  shall 
have  every  good  author  in  the  four  languages,  Latin,  Greek,  Hebrew, 
and  Chaldee,  in  every  branch  of  learning,  in  full  and  emended  editions, 
through  the  efforts  of  this  one  man,  and  that  no  one  shall  lack  any 
part  of  his  literary  inheritance. 

Even  after  1526  Erasmus  kept  making  additions  to  his 
work,  the  last  in  the  year  of  his  death.  One  reason  for 
these  continual  alterations  was  doubtless  that  they  gave 
each  new  edition  a  value  slightly  greater  than  the  last, 
and  this,  in  the  days  before  copyright,  helped  to  keep 
control  of  the  profits  in  the  hands  of  the  chosen  printer, 
usually  Froben.  The  book  in  its  final  form  contained 
4,151  proverbs.  It  had  an  enormous  success,  no  less  than 
sixty  editions  being  called  for  during  the  author’s  lifetime 
and  at  least  seventy-five  more  during  the  seventeenth 
century.1  Enthusiastic  commentators  did  not  hesitate  to 
ascribe  the  progress  of  learning  and  the  reform  of  uni¬ 
versity  curricula  in  the  sixteenth  century  to  the  influence 
of  the  Adagia.  But  its  popularity  was  not  all  due  to  its 
convenience  as  a  storehouse  of  ornament  for  the  aspiring 
Latinist.2  There  was  an  English  translation  by  Richard 


1  On  the  Adagia  see  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  Van  der  Haeghen,  Van  den 
Betghe  and  Arnold;  vol.  i,  Adagia,  Ghent,  1897.  In  the  seventeenth  century 
critics  had  begun  to  say  that  Erasmus’s  Latin  style  was  not  Ciceronian  and 
his  translations  from  the  Greek  were  awkward.  Nevertheless,  twenty-four 
more  editions  of  the  Adagia  were  called  for  before  the  year  1700.  Since  then 
it  has  not  been  printed  in  its  original  form  except  in  the  edition  of  the  Opera 
of  1703. 

2  Anonymous  preface  to  edition  of  1612. 


ERASMUS 


46 

Taverner  in  1539,  an  Italian  version  in  1550,  one  in 
German  in  1556,  and  one  in  Dutch  in  1561. 

In  fact,  the  Adages  soon  became  a  standard  work  used 
and  quoted  by  everyone  with  any  pretensions  to  scholar¬ 
ship.  Luther,1  quoted  it  thirteen  times  within  a  single 
year  in  his  correspondence,  and  from  this  compilation 
derived  some  of  his  political  axioms.  The  style  and 
thought  of  Montaigne2  and  of  La  Boetie  wTere  nourished 
on  it.  Conrad  Gesner3  richly  decked  his  Natural  History 
of  Animals  with  proverbs  about  brute  nature  culled  from 
the  humanist.  The  great  Elizabethans,  Bacon4  and 
Shakespeare,5  knew  it  and  used  it. 

To  take  up  again  the  thread  of  Erasmus’s  life  at  the 
point  where  he  published  the  first  edition  of  the  Adages , 
he  continued  to  reside  at  Paris  until  September  of  the 
same  year  (1500),  and  then  went  to  Orleans  for  three 
months.  It  was  about  this  time  that  he  seriously  began 
the  study  of  Greek,  for  reasons  explained  to  one  of  his 
patrons,  Antony  of  Bergen,  Abbot  of  St.  Bertin:6 

By  lucky  chance  I  got  some  Greek  works,  which  I  am  stealthily 
transcribing  night  and  day.  It  may  be  asked  why  I  am  so  pleased 
with  the  example  of  Cato  the  Censor  as  to  be  learning  Greek  at  my 
age.  ...  I  am  determined  that  it  is  better  to  learn  late  than  to 
be  without  knowledge  which  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to 
possess.  I  had  a  taste  of  this  learning  a  long  time  ago,  but  it  was  only 
with  the  tip  of  the  tongue,  as  they  say;  and  having  lately  dipped 
deeper  into  it,  we  see,  what  we  have  often  read  in  the  most  weighty 
authors,  that  Latin  erudition,  however  ample,  is  crippled  and  imper¬ 
fect  without  Greek.  We  have  in  Latin  at  best  some  small  brooks 
and  turbid  pools,  while  the  Greeks  have  the  purest  fountains  and 

1  On  Luther,  infra ,  p.  213. 

1  Montaigne:  Essais,  ii,  5;  iii,  5,  6,  8,  etc.  On  La  Boetie  my  Age  of  the 
Reformation ,  599. 

*  H.  Morley:  “Conrad  Gesner,”  in  Clement  Marot  and  other  Studies , 
1871,  ii,  120. 

4  Francis  Bacon:  Works ,  ii,  1861,  pp.  126  ff,  several  quotations  from  the 
Adages  and  Ciceronianus  in  the  De  Augmentis ,  1623. 

‘Shakespeare:  Troilus  and  Cressida,  “Blunt  wedges  rive  hard  knots"; 
Hamlet ,  II,  ii,  416:  “An  old  man  is  twice  a  child." 

6  Allen,  ep.  149;  Nichols,  ep.  143;  cf.  similar  expressions  in  Allen,  epp. 
129,  138. 


47 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY 

rivers  flowing  with  gold.  I  see  that  it  is  mere  madness  to  touch 
with  a  finger  that  principal  part  of  theology,  which  treats  of  divine 
mysteries,  without  being  furnished  with  the  apparatus  of  Greek, 
when  those  wTho  translated  the  sacred  books  have,  with  all  their 
scrupulosity,  so  rendered  the  Greek  figures  of  speech  that  not  even 
the  primary  sense,  which  our  theologians  call  “the  literal,”  can  be 
perceived  by  those  who  do  not  know  Greek. 

Erasmus  then  gives  an  example  of  the  sort  of  misunder¬ 
standing  he  means,  arising  from  a  verse  in  a  Psalm,  which 
in  Greek  reads:  Kott  n  afxapria  fiov  svuntov  (iov  earl 
5 canavrog  but  in  the  Latin  vulgate1  peccatum  meum 
contra  me  est  semper.  A  certain  theologian,  he  says,  had 
once  given  a  long  disquisition  on  this  text,  pointing  out 
how  the  spirit  was  ever  fighting  with  the  flesh,  whereas, 
he  missed  the  whole  meaning  of  the  words,  which  is  not 
“my  sin  is  ever  against  me,”  but  “my  sin  is  ever 
before  me.” 

While  on  a  visit  to  the  Netherlands  the  next  summer 
Erasmus  spent  much  time  on  Greek  studies.  By  this 
time  he  had  become  so  enraptured  that  he  would  rather 
pawn  his  coat  than  fail  to  get  any  new  publications  in 
that  language,  especially  if  it  were  something  Christian, 
like  the  Psalms  or  the  gospels.2  He  speaks  of  reading 
Euripides  and  Isocrates;  and  he  ordered  Greek  books 
from  Paris.3 

The  publication  of  Greek  authors  was  much  less 
advanced  than  that  of  Latin.  Almost  all  the  editiones 
principes  were  brought  out  in  Italy,  and  many  were 
doubtless  hard  to  get  north  of  the  Alps.  By  the  year 
1500  there  had  been  printed,  in  this  order:  iEsop, 
Homer,  Isocrates,  Theocritus,  Hesiod,  the  Anthologia 
Grceca ,  the  Medea ,  Hippolytus ,  Alcestis  and  Andromache 
of  Euripides,  Aristotle,  Bion,  Moschus,  Theognis, 
Apollonius  Rhodius,  Lucian,  nine  plays  of  Aristophanes, 
“Phalaris,”  the  Astronomici  veteres ,  and  a  few  gram¬ 
matical  writings  and  minor  authors.  The  year  1502  saw 

Vulgate,  Psalm  1:5;  *n  English  Psalm  li:3- 

2  Allen,  ep.  160;  Nichols,  ep.  156. 

1  Allen,  ep.  158;  Nichols,  ep.  154. 


ERASMUS 


48 

the  publication  of  Thucydides,  of  Sophocles,  and  of 
Herodotus.  All  eighteen  plays  of  Euripides  and  Xeno¬ 
phon’s  Hellenica  were  printed  first  in  1503;  and 
Demosthenes  in  the  year  following.  Plutarch’s  Moralia 
came  out  in  1509;  Pindar  and  Plato  in  1513;  more  of 
Aristophanes  and  Xenophon  and  the  whole  of  Pausanias 
and  Strabo  in  1516;  Plutarch’s  Lives  in  1517;  six  plays 
of  Aeschylus  in  1518;  Galen  in  1525;  Epictetus  in  1528; 
Polybius  in  1530;  eleven  plays  of  Aristophanes  in  1532; 
Ptolemy  in  1 53  3 -1 

While  prosecuting  his  Greek  studies  with  diligence  and 
success  Erasmus  began  Hebrew  but,  as  he  expresses  it, 
“frightened  by  the  strangeness  of  the  idiom,  and  con¬ 
sidering  the  insufficiency  of  the  human  mind  to  master 
many  subjects,”2  he  soon  gave  it  up.  Moreover,  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  did  not  attract  him  as  did  the  New 
Testament,  and  he  was  actively  repelled  by  the  other 
Jewish  writers.  So  he  wrote  to  a  Hebrew  scholar, 
somewhat  later:3 

I  could  wish  you  were  more  given  to  Greek  than  to  Hebrew  studies, 
although  I  do  not  condemn  the  latter.  I  see  the  Jewish  race  is  fed 
full  of  lifeless  tales  and  produces  nothing  but  a  little  vapor,  to  wit 
the  Cabbala,  the  Talmud,  the  Tetragrammaton,  the  Gates  of  Light, 
and  such  vain  titles.  Italy  has  many  Jews;  Spain  hardly  any 
Christians.  I  prefer  Christ,  even  contaminated  by  Scotus,  to  this 
Jewish  nonsense.  .  .  .  Would  that  the  Christian  Church  did  not 
rely  so  much  on  the  Old  Testament,  which,  although  it  was  only 
given  for  a  certain  time  and  is  full  of  shadows,  is  almost  preferred 
to  the  Christian  writings.  And  thus  we  turn  from  Christ,  who  alone 
suffices  us.4 

Erasmus  was  by  nature  a  nomad.  Never  did  he  live 
as  long  as  eight  years  consecutively  in  the  same  place. 

1  J.  E.  Sandys:  History  of  Classical  Scholarship ,  ii,  104  f. 

2  Allen,  ep.  181.  c.  December,  1504. 

*  To  Capito,  March  13,  1518.  Allen,  ep.  798;  Nichols,  ep.  761. 

4  There  is  at  Basle  a  copy  of  the  Psalterium  Hebraicum  ed.  by  C.  Pellican 
and  S.  Munster,  with  an  introduction  by  Capito,  Froben,  1516,  which 
apparently  belonged  to  Erasmus,  his  name  having  been  inscribed  in  it  by  a 
contemporary.  J.  Ficker:  “Hebraische  Handpsalter  Luthers,”  Sitiungs- 
berichte  der  Heidelberger  Akademie  dcr  JVissenschaften ,  Phil.  Hist.  Klasse, 
1919,  no.  5,  p.  4. 


49 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY 

Having  now  spent  six  years,  with  considerable  intervals, 
at  Paris,  he  decided  to  return  for  a  while  to  his  native 
country.  Here  he  lived  for  three  years.  Leaving  Paris 
in  May,  1501,  he  went  first  to  see  his  old  friends  at  Steyn, 
then  to  Haarlem  to  visit  another  old  friend,  William 
Herman,  then  to  Dordrecht  (June  9th).  He  next  so¬ 
journed  for  a  while  at  Brussels  with  the  Bishop  of 
Cambrai,  and  at  Antwerp  with  his  friend  Voecht,  after 
which  he  proceeded  to  the  island  of  Walcheren  near 
Flushing  to  stay  with  his  patroness,  Anne  of  Veere.  She 
greeted  him  kindly,  but  was  able  to  do  little  for  him, 
being  herself  under  surveillance  for  suspected  complicity 
with  the  insubordinate  Provost  of  Utrecht.1  After  a  visit 
to  Tournehem,  he  stayed  for  a  while  at  the  Abbey  of 
St.-Bertin,  in  the  town  of  St.-Omer,  as  the  guest  of  his 
patron,  Antony  of  Bergen.  It  is  possible  that  he  may 
have  discharged  secretarial  duties  for  his  host;  at  any 
rate  there  is  extant  a  letter  composed  by  Erasmus  for 
Antony  of  Bergen  to  Cardinal  John  de’  Medici,  later 
Leo  X.2  Erasmus  was  housed  in  the  cloister  during  the 
late  summer  and  autumn  of  1501;  he  passed  the  winter 
near  St.-Omer  at  Courtebourne,  the  chateau  of  Florent, 
a  nobleman  of  the  famous  family  of  Calonne;  he  then 
returned  to  St.-Bertin  for  the  spring  and  summer  of  1502. 

The  guardian  of  the  Franciscan  friary  at  St.-Omer  was 
a  certain  John  Vitrier  who,  though  a  Scotist,  was  a 
reformer  in  the  earnestness  of  his  life.  Not  being  able 
to  fulfil  his  desire  of  preaching  the  gospel  to  the  heathen, 
he  had  turned  his  attention  to  the  faults  in  the  church 
at  home,  and  had  preached,  in  the  Cathedral  of  Tournay, 
such  scathing  indictments  of  the  unreformed  convents, 
immoral  clergy,  and  indulgences,  which  he  said  “came 
from  hell,”  that  his  propositions  were  fastened  upon  as 
heretical  and  he  was  compelled  by  the  Sorbonne  to 
retract  on  October  2,  1498.  Later  he  came  into  conflict 
with  the  Bishop  of  Boulogne,  for  he  was  one  of  those 

1  Allen,  i,  p.  357;  Nichols,  i,  p.  317. 

3  Allen,  ep.  162. 


I 


50 


ERASMUS 


men  persecuted  by  a  world  not  worthy  of  him.  Erasmus, 
learning  to  know  and  love  him,  preferred  his  character 
even  to  that  of  John  Colet,  for  in  Vitrier,  he  said,  there 
was  no  trace  of  human  weakness.  It  is  thus  that  he 
wrote  about  him  some  years  afterward:1 

He  was  a  man  of  authority,  of  a  presence  so  distinguished  and 
elegant  and  a  mind  so  lofty  that  nothing  was  more  humane.  He 
had  been  brought  up  on  Scotist  subtleties  which  he  did  not  entirely 
disapprove,  thinking  they  contained  some  wisdom  in  their  mean 
words.  On  the  other  hand,  he  did  not  make  much  of  them,  especially 
after  he  had  tasted  Ambrose,  Cyprian,  and  Jerome.  He  greatly 
admired  what  was  sound  in  Origen  without  approving  his  heresy. 
He  perfectly  knew  the  Bible,  and  especially  the  epistles  of  Paul, 
which  he  could  recite  by  heart.  He  prepared  his  sermons  by  reading 
Paul  and  by  prayer.  In  his  sermons  he  connected  the  gospel  and 
epistle,  avoiding  citations  from  the  fathers  and  the  Canon  Law. 
He  had  at  one  time  wished  to  be  a  missionary  and  martyr,  but  was 
called  back  by  a  voice  from  heaven  which  promised  him  martyrdom 
at  home.  .  .  .  He  thought  little  of  ceremonies,  advising  me  to  eat 
some  meat  in  Lent  for  the  sake  of  my  health.  He  made  everyone 
better,  being  especially  successful  in  preparing  them  for  death. 

In  the  autumn  of  1 502  Erasmus  settled  at  Louvain  for 
about  two  years.  Louvain  was  a  large,  fortified  town, 
conveniently  provided  with  canals  for  the  transport  of 
merchandise  and  adorned  with  spacious  squares  and 
splendid  churches.2  The  university,  founded  in  1425, 
had  by  this  time  become  one  of  the  leading  academies  of 
Europe.3  John  Standonck,  fresh  from  Montaigu,  and 
Adrian  of  Utrecht,  later  Pope  Adrian  VI,  had  bought,  on 
April  15,  1500,  a  college  for  poor  students,  founded  in 
1468,  which  was  known,  from  its  vicinity  to  “The  Inn 
of  the  Pig,”  as  the  Collegium  Porci.  James  Le  Ma$on 
(Latomus),  a  theologian  of  the  conservative  school,  was 

1  Allen,  ep.  1211.  To  Jonas,  June  13,  1521.  Cf.  Allen,  i,  p.  372.  On  Vitrier, 
Renaudet:  “Lrasme,”  in  Revue  Historique,  tome  iii,  p.  253;  D’Argentre: 
Collectio  judiciorum,  I,  part  ii,  pp.  340-341;  Gieseler:  Church  History ,  English 
translation  by  Hull,  1858,  iii,  404. 

2  L.  v.  Pastor:  “Die  Reise  Luigis  d’Aragona”  ( Erganzungen  und  Erlauter- 
ungen  zu  Janssens  Geschichte  des  Deutschen  Volkes ,  Band  v,  4),  1908,  p.  56. 

3  Rashdall:  Universities,  ii,  261,  and  766  ff.  On  “Erasmus  at  Louvain,” 
Foster  Watson,  Hibbert  Journal ,  April,  1918. 


LOUVAIN  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY 
From  an  old  print  at  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris 


< 


5i 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY 

made  head  of  this  institution.1  Erasmus,  who  attended 
some  lectures  on  theology  given  by  Adrian  of  Utrecht,2 
was  offered  the  position  of  instructor  at  the  college,  but, 
with  his  habitual  independence,  declined.3 

The  humanist  of  Rotterdam  had  by  this  time  risen  to 
sufficient  prominence  to  be  selected  by  the  civic  authori¬ 
ties  as  the  proper  person  to  present  a  congratulatory 
address  to  their  sovereign,  Philip  the  Handsome,  Arch¬ 
duke  of  Austria  and  Duke  of  Burgundy,  on  his  return  to 
the  Netherlands  from  Spain.  The  address,  of  wffiich 
perhaps  only  a  short  portion  was  declaimed,  wffiile  the 
rest  was  presented  in  book  form  under  the  appropriate 
title  of  The  Panegyric ,  took  place  at  the  royal  castle  in 
Brussels  on  January  6,  1504.  Philip  was  graciously 
pleased  with  the  work  and  bestowed  upon  its  author 
fifty  livres  as  a  token  of  favor.4  The  oration5  was, 
inevitably,  stuffed  with  fulsome  laudation  of  the  duke 
and  all  his  relatives,  which  Erasmus  defended  in  private 
as  a  necessary  sugar-coating  for  the  pill  of  good  advice: 

For  there  is  no  more  effective  method  of  reforming  a  prince  than 
setting  before  him,  under  the  guise  of  praise,  the  example  of  a  good 
monarch.  .  .  .  How,  with  more  impunity,  or  with  more  severity, 
could  you  reprove  a  wicked  prince  better  than  by  magnifying  clemency 
in  his  person?  How  could  you  better  animadvert  on  his  rapacity, 
violence,  or  lust,  than  by  lauding  his  benignity,  moderation,  and 
chastity? 

Nor  was  this  excuse  wholly  disingenuous.  The  orator  did 
indeed  inculcate  a  number  of  royal  virtues,  especially 
that  of  keeping  the  peace. 

Erasmus  continued  to  study  at  Louvain  throughout 
the  year  1504,  during  which  time  he  received  several 


1  Allen,  i,  p.  200;  ii,  p.  xix.  Godet:  La  Congregation  de  Montaigu,  p.  125. 

2  Erasmus  to  Adrian  VI,  August  1,  1522;  LB.  ep.  633,  col.  723. 

3  Allen,  epp.  172,  171.  His  name  does  not  even  appear  in  the  matriculation 
book  in  these  years;  see  H.  de  Voecht:  “Excerpts  from  the  Registers  of 
Louvain  University,”  English  Historical  Review,  1922,  89  ff. 

4  Allen,  ep.  179  and  introduction. 

6  LB.  iv,  507  ff. 


ERASMUS 


52 

small  subsidies  or  “alms”  from  the  government.1  He 
also  made  some  money  by  composing  epitaphs  for 
wealthy  patrons.2 

While  in  the  Netherlands  Erasmus  composed  and 
published  the  work  which,  more  than  any  other,  gave 
a  complete  and  rounded  exposition  of  “the  philos¬ 
ophy  of  Christ,”  as  he  loved  to  call  the  form  of  religion 
taught  by  him  throughout  life.  For  some  years  past 
piety  had  been  a  growing  interest,  until,  from  a  small 
seed,  it  waxed  a  tree  that  overshadowed  all  other  business 
of  life,  even  that  of  enjoying  and  studying  the  classics. 
Erasmus  was  one  of  those  happy  natures  that  blossom 
and  ripen  into  perfection  ever  so  gradually.  For  him 
there  was  apparently  no  convulsion,  no  “conversion” 
such  as  stands  at  the  head  of  many  a  prophet’s  career. 
No  blinding  light  smote  him  to  the  ground,  no  revelation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  taught  him  the  secret  of  justification 
by  faith,  no  visions  of  the  Trinity  dazzled  his  eyeballs. 
As  a  youth  he  had  learned  religion;  even  while,  as  a 
student  at  Paris,  he  found  life  gay  rather  than  godly,  his 
early  poems  and  letters  showed  a  slowly  strengthening 
character  and  an  ever  deeper  interest  in  the  gospel.  It  is, 
perhaps,  remarkable  that  with  Standonck  and  “Gryllard” 
and  the  monks  to  make  piety  repulsive,  and  with  Valla 
and  Andrelinus  to  make  irreligion  attractive,  he  did  not 
become  a  complete  rationalist  and  Epicurean.  Instead, 
he  learned  from  both  humanists  and  schoolmen,  and  never 
forgot  the  lesson  that  meticulous  religiosity  is  horrible 
and  that  reason  has  her  rights  in  weighing  the  claims  of 
dogma. 

The  peculiar  quality  of  the  Erasmian  ideal  of  an 
undogmatic  religion  and  an  ethical  piety,  founded  alike 
on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  on  the  teachings  of 
Greek  philosophy,  was  rooted  in  two  schools  with  which 

1  Allen,  ep.  181,  introduction;  and  M.  de  Foronda  y  Aguilera:  Estancias  y 
Viages  del  Emperador  Carlos  V ,  1914,  p.  19:  “A  Fr.  Erasmo  agustino  como 
limosna  para  ayudarle  a  pagar  la  escuela  de  Lovania  donde  estaba  estudiando.” 
Receipt  of  Finances,  Lille,  1504. 

2  Allen,  ep.  178,  51  n. 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY  53 

he  early  came  in  contact,  that  called  the  “devotio 
moderna”  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  and  that 
of  the  Florentine  Platonic  Academy.1  Widely  different, 
indeed  mutually  hostile,  as  appeared  the  sources  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  German  mystics  and  of  the  Italian 
humanists,  both  agreed  in  asserting,  against  the  stiffening 
of  religion  through  dogma  and  organization,  the  claims 
of  an  inner,  personal  piety.  The  mystic,  by  emphasizing 
the  role  of  the  spirit,  the  other  by  cherishing  the  rights  of 
reason,  arrived  at  the  point  where  theology  and  ritual 
alike  were  regarded  as  hindrances  to  the  inner  life,  and 
where  the  ethical  interest  emerged  uppermost.  In  the 
almost  godless  Valla  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  God- 
intoxicated  Tauler  on  the  other,  one  finds  a  kindred  ideal 
of  Christianity  as  a  life  rather  than  a  creed  or  a  ceremony. 
Priest  and  sacrament  shrank  in  importance  before  the 
assertion  of  the  new  individualism. 

The  deep  piety  of  the  German  mystics  permeated  the 
schools  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  and  left  its 
traces  in  Erasmus’s  earliest  writings,  such  as  the  Anti- 
barbari ,  mainly  concerned  as  they  are  with  classical  learn¬ 
ing.  Upon  him,  as  little  of  a  mystic  as  a  religious  man 
can  be,  the  lesson  was  stamped  that,  as  Thomas  a  Kempis 
had  taught,  the  true  worship  of  Christ  was  imitation  of 
him,  not  verbal  assent  to  a  creed  or  exploitation  of  sac¬ 
ramental  grace.  Here,  also,  he  learned  that  the  pure 
philosophy  of  Christ  was  inwardly  related  to  all  the 
truths  of  antiquity,  to  the  Stoic  mastery  of  self  and  faith 
in  predestination,  to  the  Platonic  idealism  and  other¬ 
worldliness.  Plato,  he  soon  discovered,  was  a  theolo¬ 
gian,  Socrates  a  saint,  Cicero  inspired,  and  Seneca  not 
far  from  Paul.  "‘Their  philosophy,”  he  once  said,  “lies 
rather  in  the  affections  than  in  syllogisms;  it  is  a 


1  On  this  see  P.  Mestwerdt:  Die  Anf tinge  ties  Erasmus  und  die  Devotio 
Moderna,  191 7;  H.  Ernst:  “Die  Frommigkeit  des  Erasmus,”  Theologische 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  1919,  pp.  46  ff;  E.  Troeltsch:  Die  Kultur  der  Gegemvart: 
Geschichte  der  Christlichen  Religion ,  1909,  pp.  476  ff;  P.  Imbart  de  la  Tour: 
Les  Origines  de  la  Reforme ,  ii,  413.  J.  Lindeboom:  Erasmus:  Onderzoek  naar 
lijne  theologie  en  zijn  godsdienstig  Gemoedsbestaan ,  1909. 


54 


ERASMUS 


life  more  than  a  debate,  an  inspiration  rather  than  a 
discipline;  a  transformation  rather  than  a  reasoning. 
What  else,  pray,  is  the  philosophy  of  Christ?”1 

The  influence  of  the  Platonic  Academy  of  Florence  and 
of  its  wonderfully  beautiful  soul,  Pico  della  Mirandola, 
may  have  come  to  him  first  through  Rudolph  Agricola. 
Later  he  learned  to  know  Pico  through  his  disciples 
Thomas  More  and  John  Colet;  finally  he  read  his  works.2 
Of  equal  or  more  value  to  his  spiritual  development  was 
the  friendship  of  those  choice  and  master  spirits  of  the 
time,  More,  Colet,  and  Vitrier,  men  who,  while  making 
light  of  ceremonies  and  scholastic  subtleties,  beautified 
religion  by  holiness.  But  among  all  these  sources  of 
devotion  and  of  moral  aspiration  the  first  and  greatest 
was  he  who  had  been  meek  and  lowly  of  heart,  the  su¬ 
preme  inspiration  of  all  the  ages,  the  man  whose  tragic 
and  beautiful  life  has  been  the  finest  and  noblest  thing 
in  human  history.  Turning  to  the  gospel  Erasmus  drew 
his  own  conclusions,  that  religion  was  a  life,  not  a  creed, 
still  less  a  set  of  prescribed  rules  and  ceremonies.  The 
life  was  that  taught  by  the  example  of  Jesus  and  by  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Here,  not  in  Plato  nor  in  Pico 
nor  even  in  Paul,  did  the  humanist  find  his  truest 
inspiration. 

In  working  out  a  consistent  system,  Erasmus  was  con¬ 
fronted  by  two  problems,  that  of  cult  and  that  of  dogma. 
His  attitude  to  the  former  was  to  let  it  alone,  relying  on 
holiness  of  character  to  purify  and  vivify  it.  “External 
worship  is  not  condemned,”  he  wrote  in  his  Enchiridion , 
“but  God  is  pleased  only  by  the  inw^ard  piety  of  the 
worshipper.”  Luther,  and  still  more  Calvin,  reformed  the 
ceremonies  and  rites  of  the  Church  according  to  their 
conceptions  of  Biblical  precedent  and  precept;  Erasmus 
had  no  such  design,  and  for  many  reasons.  In  the  first 
place  he  was  too  historical-minded  not  to  cherish  tradi¬ 
tional  forms.  Secondly,  he  was  under  no  bibliolatrous 

1  Paraclesis ,  LB.  v,  141.  Cf.  also  Allen,  ep.  1062. 

*  So  he  says  in  the  Ciceronianus ,  LB.  i,  1009. 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY  55 

prepossession,  such  as  would  lead  him  to  regard  every¬ 
thing  not  sanctioned  by  a  specific  text  as  wrong.  Thirdly, 
he  was  unwilling  to  give  offense,  and  finally,  he  regarded 
the  whole  matter  of  cult  as  one  of  subordinate  concern. 
Fasting,  sacerdotal  celibacy,  the  communion  in  one  kind, 
and  all  the  rest  of  the  Church  law  did  no  harm,  if  stress 
were  not  put  upon  such  matters. 

In  the  face  of  dogma  Erasmus  was  a  child  of  the 
Renaissance.  It  is  too  much  to  say  either  that  he 
neglected  it  or  regarded  it  as  of  minor  importance;  but 
it  is  conspicuously  true  that  with  him  dogma  had  not  the 
supreme  place  that  it  had  with  the  Reformers  and  with 
the  inquisitors.  While  at  times  he  hovered  on  the  verge 
of  doubt  of  some  doctrines,  or  admitted  the  possibility  of 
doubt  in  others  without  the  brand  of  heresy,  yet  he  always 
sought  and  finally  yielded  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible, 
and,  in  the  second  place,  to  that  of  the  Church,  as  the 
voice  of  either  could  be  reasonably  interpreted.1  As  with 
other  men,  so  with  Erasmus,  we  find  slight  inconsis¬ 
tencies  and  variations  in  his  statements.  But  on  the 
whole  his  attitude  is  plain,  and  it  is  far  more  modern  than 
was  that  of  the  Reformers.  He  welcomed  criticism  and 
philosophy  as  aids  to  religion;  they  dreaded  reason  as  a 
foe  to  faith.1 

All  these  ideas  found  perfect  expression  in  a  little  work 
of  devotion,  the  Enchiridion  Militis  Christiani ,  or  the 
Handbook  (or  Dagger ,  the  word  has  a  double  meaning) 
of  the  Christian  Knight.  Erasmus,  who  always  knew  how 
to  invest  his  books  with  a  personal  interest,  tells  how  this 
was  written  at  the  request  of  a  lady  who  wished  to  reform 
her  husband,  a  great  noble,  jovial,  hot-tempered,  dissi¬ 
pated,  and  completely  illiterate.  His  name  was  John,  and 
the  author  remained  on  friendly  terms  with  him  for  many 
years,  but  his  exact  identity  has  never  yet  been  put 
beyond  doubt.  Possibly  he  was  a  certain  John  de 
Trazegnies,  who  was  decorated  with  the  order  of  the 
Golden  Fleece  in  November,  1516,  and  who  owned 

1  Lindeboom,  passim ,  and  especially  pp.  156  ff. 


ERASMUS 


56 

estates  in  Artois.  At  any  rate,  the  book  was  begun  at 
Tournehem  in  Artois  in  1501,  and  the  dedication  written 
at  St.-Omer,  in  the  autumn  of  the  same  year.1 

The  title,  Enchiridion ,  is  borrowed  from  Epictetus,  or 
from  Augustine,  who  applied  it  to  small  treatises  on 
things  especially  necessary  to  salvation.  Luther  later 
took  the  word  as  the  designation  of  his  shorter  catechism.2 
The  idea  of  the  Christian  Knight  had  been  a  common  one 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  being  derived  from  the  comparison 
of  the  Christian  life  to  warfare.3  The  Latin  translation 
of  Job  vii:i,  is,  “Militia  est  vita  hominis  super  terrain,” 
an  interpretation  followed  by  the  early  German  ver¬ 
sions,  which  rendered  “militia”  by  “ Ritterschaft.”4  St. 
Paul,  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Ephesians,  fully  describes 
the  armor  of  faith,  and  alludes  to  it  elsewhere.  The  idea 
had  been  further  developed  in  the  Middle  Ages,  especially 
by  the  mystic  Suso  (1295-1366).  The  official  title  of  the 
Knights  Templars  was  “Pauperes  Commilitones  Christi 
templique  Salamonis,”  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  one  of 
their  founders,  Godeffroi  de  St.-Omer,  came  from  the 
same  place  from  which  Erasmus  now  wrote  his  introduc¬ 
tion.  The  phrase  “Knight  of  Christ”  after  1450  had 
become  a  catchword  in  German  religious  life.  Certain 
saints  had  been  honored  as  Milites  Christi ,  in  which 
character  two  had  been  depicted  between  1420  and  1432 
in  the  famous  altarpiece  of  the  Van  Eycks  at  Ghent, 
which  was  probably  seen  by  Erasmus.  Even  Valla  once 
called  himself  “a  Christian  knight.” 

The  first  chapter  of  the  Enchiridion  carefully  works 
out  this  idea  of  the  warfare  of  life,  while  the  second 
describes  the  arms  of  the  Christian,  and  the  third 

1  Allen,  ep.  164.  Text  of  the  work,  LB.  v,  1  ff.  Cf.  Allen,  i,  pp.  19,  20; 
Nichols,  i,  337,  376. 

2  On  the  name,  Du  Cange:  Glossarium  media  et  infima  latinitatis,  s.  v. 

3  P.  Weber:  Albrecht  Diirers  Weltanschauung  (1909).  H.  Bergner:  “Der 
christliche  Ritter  in  der  Dichtung  und  bildender  Kunst,”  Zeitschrift  fur 
Biicherfreunde ,  N.  F.  6,  1915,  237  IF. 

4  “Das  leben  des  menschen  ist  eine  ritterschaft  auf  der  Erde,”  in  version  of 
1466,  reprinted  by  W.  Kurrelmeyer:  Der  erste  deutsche  Bibel,  1910.  Luther’s 
version  was:  “Muss  nicht  der  Mensch  immer  in  Streit  sein  auf  Erden?” 


57 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  ANTIQUITY 

differentiates  true  from  false  wisdom.  The  fourth,  fifth, 
and  sixth  chapters  contain  the  kernel  of  the  book,  the 
distinction  between  the  inner  and  the  outer  man:  the 
flesh  and  the  spirit,  the  sensual  and  the  moral,  external 
observances  and  internal  righteousness.  Fasting,  without 
a  spirtual  intent,  may  be  a  more  carnal  work  than  eating, 
and  the  worship  of  the  saints  is  often  ignorant  and 
selfish: 

There  are  those  who  worship  certain  heavenly  powers  with  special 
rites.  One  salutes  Christopher  daily,  though  only  when  he  sees  his 
image,  because  he  has  persuaded  himself  that  on  such  days  he  will 
be  insured  against  an  evil  death.  Another  worships  St.  Roch — 
but  why?  Because  he  thinks  to  drive  away  the  plague.  Another 
mumbles  prayers  to  Barbara  or  George,  lest  he  fall  into  the  hands 
of  an  enemy.  This  man  vows  to  Apollonia  to  fast  in  order  to  escape 
toothache;  that  one  gazes  on  the  image  of  St.  Job  to  get  rid  of 
the  itch.  Some  give  part  of  their  profits  to  the  poor  in  order  to 
keep  their  business  from  mishap;  some  light  candles  to  Jerome  to 
restore  a  business  already  bad.1 


Such  a  cult  of  the  saints  is  declared  to  be  on  a  par  with 
idolatry ;  the  names  of  Hercules,  /Esculapius  and  Neptune 
are  changed,  but  the  spirit  of  the  devotee  is  the  same. 
“The  true  way  to  worship  the  saints  is  to  imitate  their^ 
virtues,  and  they  care  more  for  this  than  for  a  hundred 
candles.  .  .  .You  venerate  the  bones  of  Paul  laid  \ 
away  in  a  shrine,  but  not  the  mind  of  Paul,  enshrined  in'^ 
his  writings/’  The  writer  then  goes  on  to  discuss  the 
tripartite  nature  of  man,  the  divine  spirit,  the  animal 
flesh,  the  human  soul.  He  closes  by  drawing  a  number 
of  practical  applications  of  his  principles,  especially 
denouncing  the  evils  of  war. 

The  Enchiridion ,  first  published  at  Antwerp  in  1503, 2 
did  not  at  once  attract  much  attention.  A  reprint  was 
not  called  for  until  1509,  nor  a  third  printing  until  1515. 
After  this  new  editions  came  almost  every  year  for  a  long 
period;  it  was  translated  into  Czech  in  1519,  into  Dutch 


1  LB.  v,  23.  A  similar  passage  in  the  Praise  of  Folly ,  LB.  iv,  450. 

2  For  the  editions  see  Bibliotheca  Belgica ,  s.  v.  Erasmus ,  Enchiridion.  Allen, 
i,  pp.  229,  373. 


ERASMUS 


58 

in  1524,  Spanish  1527,  Italian  1531,  Portuguese  1541, 
Polish  1585,  and  Russian  1783.  It  found  famous  trans¬ 
lators  in  the  three  great  modern  languages.  William 
Tyndale  was  probably  the  author  of  the  English  version 
appearing  without  date  (1518)  as  Enchiridion  militis 
Christiani ,  which  maye  he  called  in  Englishe  the  hansome 
Weapon  of  the  Christian  Knight.  George  Spalatin  made 
a  German  version  in  1521,  and  the  French  reformer, 
Louis  de  Berquin,  put  it  into  his  mother  tongue  in  1529. 

It  had  a  deep  influence  on  the  more  spiritually  minded 
men  of  the  day.  Albert  Durer  knew  it  and  may  have  had 
it  in  mind  when  he  made  his  famous  woodcut,  “The 
Knight,  Death,  and  the  Devil.”1  Jerome  Emser,  a  dis¬ 
tinguished  Catholic  theologian,  spoke  highly  of  it,  and 
apparently  superintended  an  edition  of  1515.2  Luther 
knew  it  through  and  through.  His  sermons  and  letters 
of  1516  and  later  have  many  echoes  of  the  passage  on  the 
worship  of  saints,  translated  above.3  Luther’s  famous 
work,  The  Liberty  of  a  Christian  Man ,  has  a  striking 
resemblance  to  the  Enchiridion ,  both  in  its  leading 
thought  of  the  distinction  between  the  inner  and  outer 
man,4  and  in  the  idea  of  the  universal  priesthood  of 
believers  as  worked  out  from  the  New  Testament  by 
Erasmus.5 

1  Dated  1513;  he  alludes  to  the  Enchiridion  in  1521.  See  Durer s  Schriftliche 
Nachlass,  ed.  Heidrich,  1908,  p.  100. 

*  Allen,  ep.  553;  Bibliotheca  Belgica. 

8  Sermons,  July  27,  1516  ( Luthers  Werke ,  Weimar,  i,  62);  February  2,  1517, 
ibid.,  i,  130;  cf.  also  i,  420  and  iv,  636.  Most  of  all  the  sermon  of  December 
4,  1517;  ibid.,  iv,  639,  and  in  a  sermon  preached  in  1516,  but  retouched  for 
publication  in  1518,  ibid.,  411-426.  Here  Luther  advances  on  Erasmus  and 
says:  “In  our  time  the  cult  of  the  saints  has  gone  so  far  that  it  would  be 
better  if  their  days  were  not  kept,  nor  their  names  known  at  all.”  Cf.  further 
a  passage  in  a  letter  of  December  31,  1517,  Enders:  Luthers  Briefwechsel,  i, 
136;  L.C.  ep.  46. 

4  Cf.  chapters  4  and  6,  of  the  Enchiridion,  with  Luthers  Werke ,  vii,  12  flf 
and  39  ff. 

6  Cf.  LB.  v,  47,  with  Luthers  Werke ,  vii,  24. 


CHAPTER  III 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 

ERASMUS  made  at  least  six  visits  to  England,  the 
first  lasting  from  June  to  December,  1499,  the  sec¬ 
ond  from  the  autumn  of  1505  to  August,  1506,  the 
third  from  about  October,  1509,  to  July,  1514,  the  fourth 
in  May,  1515;  the  fifth  in  the  summer  of  1516;  the  sixth 
a  brief  visit  in  April,  1517.  He  sometimes  wished  that 
England  were  joined  to  the  Continent  by  a  bridge,  for 
“he  hated  the  wild  waves  and  the  still  wilder  sailors/’1 
Indeed,  in  that  age  the  passage  was  far  worse  than  it  is 
now,  when  it  is  still  so  much  disliked.  Bad  weather  and 
storms  often  caused  delays  of  many  days,  or  even  weeks 
before  the  small  boats,  sixty  feet  in  length,  dared  to 
venture  forth.  The  time  required  was  greater  than  it 
now  is,  and  accommodation  and  food  for  the  passengers, 
of  whom  seventy  were  taken  at  a  time,  were  poor.2 

The  first  trip  was  made  in  the  company,  and  probably 
at  the  invitation,  of  Lord  Mountjoy,  whom  Erasmus  had 
been  tutoring  in  Paris.  The  young  nobleman,  though 
still  a  minor,  had  been  married  for  more  than  two  years, 
but  his  child  wife  remained  in  the  custody  of  her  father, 
Sir  William  Say.  It  was  to  the  estate  of  this  gentleman, 
at  Bedwell  in  Hertfordshire,3  that  Mountjoy  and  his 
tutor  first  repaired.  Erasmus  was  delighted  beyond 
words  by  his  reception  here,  and  pleased  with  Mountjoy’s 
bride  and  her  kind  father.4  Charmed  with  the  blandish- 

1  Allen,  ep.  756,  January  7,  1518. 

*  E.  S.  Bates:  Touring  in  1600  (1911),  p.  64,  and  the  account  of  Casaubon's 
passage  in  1610,  M.  Pattison:  Casaubon ,2  1892,  pp.  274  IF. 

*  Nichols,  i,  p.  200;  Allen,  i,  p.  238.  Enthoven,  ep.  12  (January  28,  1528, 
not  as  dated  in  Enthoven). 

4  Allen,  ep.  115;  Nichols,  ep.  104. 


59 


6o 


ERASMUS 


ments  of  that  most  pleasant  of  all  resorts,  an  English 
country  house,  he  almost  threw  aside  his  studies.1  He 
himself  also  made  a  good  impression  on  his  hosts.  A 
young  man  who  visited  Bedwell  twenty-nine  years  later 
found  that  “it  was  still  full  of  memories  of  Erasmus.”2 
The  enthusiasm  of  the  young  Dutchman  was  reflected  in 
one  of  his  gayest  letters  to  his  gay  friend,  Faustus 
Andrelinus.3 

We,  too,  have  made  progress  in  England.  The  Erasmus  you 
knew  has  almost  become  a  good  hunter,  no  bad  rider,  a  courtier 
of  some  skill,  bows  with  politeness,  smiles  with  grace,  and  all  this 
in  spite  of  his  nature.  What  of  it?  We  are  getting  on.  If  you  are 
wise,  you,  too,  will  fly  over  here.  Why  should  a  man  with  a  nose 
like  yours  grow  old  among  those  French  “merdes.”4  But  you  will 
say  your  gout  detains  you.  The  devil  take  your  gout  if  he  will 
only  leave  you!  Nevertheless,  did  you  but  know  the  blessings  of 
Britain,  you  would  run  hither  with  winged  feet  and  if  the  gout 
stopped  you  you  would  wish  yourself  another  Daedalus. 

To  take  one  attraction  out  of  many;  there  are  nymphs  here  with 
divine  features,  so  gentle  and  kind  that  you  would  easily  prefer 
them  to  your  Camenae.  Besides,  there  is  a  fashion  which  cannot 
be  commended  enough.  Wherever  you  go  you  are  received  on  all 
hands  with  kisses;  when  you  leave  you  are  dismissed  with  kisses; 
if  you  go  back  your  salutes  are  returned  to  you.  When  a  visit  is 
paid,  these  sweets  are  served;  and  when  guests  depart  kisses  are 
shared  again;  whenever  a  meeting  takes  place  there  is  kissing  in 
abundance;  in  fact,  whatever  way  you  turn  you  are  never  without 
it.  Oh  Faustus,  if  you  had  once  tasted  how  soft  and  fragrant  those 
kisses  are,  you  would  wish  to  be  a  traveler,  not  for  ten  years,  like 
Solon,  but  for  your  whole  life,  in  England. 

The  habit  which  pleased  Erasmus  so  much  was  indeed 
noticed  by  many  travelers  in  Britain  at  this  time,6  and 
the  coaxing  young  man,  “most  inclined  to  love,”6  as  he 

1  Allen,  ep.  136,  line  46,  referring  to  the  whole  visit  in  England. 

1  Enthoven,  ep.  12. 

3  Allen,  ep.  103;  Nichols,  ep.  98.  Summer,  1499. 

4  This  word  “merda,”  though  found  in  Horace,  w^as  hardly  in  decent  usage. 
Erasmus  quoted  it  from  one  of  Faustus’s  own  poems. 

6  Some  references  given  in  Nichols,  i,  p.  204;  more  in  Mrs.  H.  Cust;  Gentle¬ 
men  Errant ,  1909,  pp.  42,  496-498.  The  same  freedom  of  kissing  pretty 
women  was  noted  by  Balcus  in  his  Description  of  Switzerland  (1500-04), 
quoted  in  S.  M.  Jackson:  U.  Zwingli,  1900,  p.  16. 

•Allen,  ep.  107,  October,  1499. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS  6 1 

called  himself,  would  be  likely  to  make  the  most  of  his 
opportunities. 

From  Bedwell  Erasmus  went  with  Mountjoy  to  the 
latter’s  country  house  at  Greenwich.  Here  he  met  young 
Thomas  More,  later  destined  to  prove  himself,  by  his 
noble  Utopia  and  by  his  courageous  resistance  to  tyranny, 
the  chief  ornament  of  his  country.  Among  the  friends  of 
More,  Erasmus  met  also  a  certain  Arnold,  who  may  per¬ 
haps  be  identified  with  Richard  Arnold,  a  citizen  of 
London,  who  died  in  1521,  and  whose  Chronicle ,  pub¬ 
lished  in  the  Netherlands  in  1502,  furnishes  information 
about  the  coinage  and  tolls  of  Flanders,  but  is  chiefly 
remembered  for  containing  the  famous  ballad  “The 
Nut-Brown  Maid.’’1  Through  the  good  offices  of  More, 
Erasmus  was  taken  to  Eltham  Palace,  near  Greenwich, 
and  presented  to  the  children  of  Henry  VII,  all  but 
Arthur,  wTho  was  away  being  educated.  “In  the  midst 
of  the  group,”  says  the  visitor,  “stood  Prince  Henry,  then 
nine  years  old,  and  having  already  something  royal  in 
his  demeanor,  in  which  loftiness  of  mind  was  combined 
with  singular  culture.  On  his  right  was  Margaret,  about 
eleven  years  old,  afterward  married  to  James,  King  of 
Scots,  and  on  his  left  played  Mary,  a  child  of  four. 
Edmund  was  an  infant  in  arms.”2  More  presented  a 
complimentary  address  or  poem  to  Prince  Henry;  but 
Erasmus  was  unprepared,  and  angry  at  his  companion 
for  not  having  warned  him,  especially  as  the  boy  sent 
him  a  little  note  challenging  something  from  his  pen. 
Immediately  on  returning  home  he  wrote  a  poem 
entitled  Prosopopoeia  Britanniae  Majoris ,3  in  wTich 
Britain  speaks  her  own  praises  and  those  of  her  king. 
It  was  printed,  with  a  flattering  introductory  letter  to 

1  On  Arnold,  see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  and  J.  M.  Berdan; 
Early  Tudor  Poetry,  1920,  pp.  153  f. 

2  Allen,  i,  p.  6;  Nichols,  i,  p.  201.  The  scene  here  described  has  been  made 
the  subject  of  a  beautiful  painting  by  Frank  Cadogan  Cowper,  in  the  Houses 
of  Parliament.  More  is  kneeling,  presenting  Henry  with  his  writing;  while 
Erasmus  stands  behind  More  to  the  left. 

3  LB  i,  1213  ff. 


62 


ERASMUS 


Prince  Henry1  in  the  first  edition  of  the  Adages  (1500). 
The  letter  concludes  with  an  exhortation  to  literary 
studies,  and  a  complimentary  allusion  to  Skelton,  “that 
incomparable  light  and  ornament  of  British  letters.” 
As  Skelton  is  also  mentioned  in  the  poem  itself,2  and  as 
he  was  tutor  to  Prince  Henry  at  this  time,  Erasmus 
must  have  met  him.  For  the  poet,  whose  works  he  could 
not  enjoy,  as  they  were  nearly  all  in  English,  he  wrote 
a  laudatory  lyric  which  he  never  published  possibly 
because  Skelton  did  not  on  his  side  produce  anything 
in  praise  of  the  author,  though  he  apparently  wrote 
something,  or  was  expected  to  do  so.  The  verse,  which 
has  remained  unpublished  until  the  present,3  may  be 
translated  as  follows: 

O  Skelton,  worthy  of  eternal  fame, 

Why  should  thy  fount  of  speech  pour  on  my  name 
The  meed  of  praise,  for  I  have  never  sought 
Pierian  grottos,  nor  drunk  water  brought 
From  the  Aonian  fountain,  liquor  which 
The  lips  of  poets  ever  doth  enrich. 

But  unto  thee  Apollo  gave  his  lyre, 

Thou  playest  the  strings  taught  by  the  Muses*  choir; 
Persuasion  lies  like  honey  on  thy  tongue 
Given  by  Calliope,  and  thou  hast  sung 
A  song  more  sweet  than  dying  swan’s  by  far, 

And  Orpheus  self  yields  thee  his  own  guitar, 

And  when  thou  strik’st  it  savage  beasts  grow  mild, 

Thou  leadest  oaks  and  stayest  torrents  wild, 

And  with  thy  soul-enchanting  melodies 

Thou  meltest  rocks.  The  debt  that  ancient  Greece 

To  Homer  owed,  to  Vergil  Mantua, 

That  debt  to  Skelton  owes  Britannia, 

For  he  from  Latium  all  the  muses  led, 

And  taught  them  to  speak  English  words  instead 
Of  Latin;  and  with  Skelton  England  tries 
With  Roman  poets  to  contend  the  prize. 

1  Allen,  ep.  104;  Nichols,  ep.  97. 

2  lam  puer  Henricus  genitoris  nomine  laetus  Monstrante  fonteis  vate 
Skeltone  sacros.  (LB.  i,  1216.) 

3  Original  in  British  Museum,  Egerton  MS.  1651,  fol.  6  f.  For  text  see 
Appendix  III. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


63 

By  autumn  Erasmus  was  found  at  Oxford,  staying  at 
St.  Mary’s  College,  a  house  founded  in  1435  to  enable 
young  Austin  canons  to  study  at  the  university.  The 
prior  was  a  certain  learned  and  virtuous  Richard  Char- 
nock.1  A  banquet,  almost  a  Platonic  symposium,  in 
which  Erasmus  participated,  is  described  by  him  in  the 
following  letter2  to  his  friend,  John  Sixtin,  a  fellow 
countryman  then  also  at  Oxford: 

How  I  wish  you  had  been  present,  as  I  expected,  at  that  last 
feast  of  ours,  a  feast  of  reason  than  which  nothing  was  ever  sweeter, 
cleaner,  or  more  delicious.  Nothing  was  wanting.  A  choice  time, 
a  choice  place,  no  arrangements  neglected  and  fine  little  men,  as 
Varro  says.3  The  good  cheer  would  have  satisfied  Epicurus;  the 
table  talk  would  have  pleased  Pythagoras.  The  little  men  were  so 
fine  that  they  might  have  peopled  an  Academy,  and  not  merely 
made  up  a  dinner  party.  First,  there  was  Prior  Richard  Charnock, 
that  high  priest  of  the  Graces;  then  the  divine  who  had  preached  the 
Latin  sermon  that  day,  a  person  of  modesty  as  well  as  learning; 
then  your  friend  Philip,  most  cheerful  and  witty.  Colet,  assertor 
and  champion  of  the  old  theology,  was  at  the  head  of  the  table. 

In  December,  Erasmus  returned  to  London  and  pre¬ 
pared  to  depart  from  England.  He  summed  up  his 
impressions  of  the  land  to  his  old  friend  Robert  Fisher, 
then  in  Italy.  The  letter,  perhaps,  was  intended  for 
general  perusal:4 

But  you  will  ask  how  I  like  England.  Believe  me,  my  Robert, 
when  I  say  that  I  never  liked  anything  so  much  before.  I  have 
found  the  climate  here  most  agreeable  and  salubrious;  and  I  have 
met  with  so  much  civility,  and  so  much  learning,  not  hackneyed  and 
trivial,  but  deep,  accurate,  ancient,  Latin  and  Greek,  that  but  for 
curiosity  I  do  not  now  much  care  whether  I  see  Italy  or  not.  When 
I  hear  my  Colet  I  seem  to  be  listening  to  Plato  himself.  In  Grocin 
who  does  not  marvel  at  such  a  perfect  world  of  learning?  What  can 
be  more  acute,  profound,  and  delicate  than  the  judgment  of  Linacre? 
What  has  nature  ever  created  more  gentle,  sweet,  or  happy  than  the 
genius  of  Thomas  More? 

1  Allen,  ep.  106. 

2  Allen,  ep.  116;  Nicholas,  ep.  205,  November,  1499. 

3  Varro,  Men.  335. 

4  Allen,  ep.  118;  Nichols,  ep.  no. 


64 


ERASMUS 


On  January  27,  1500,  Erasmus  was  at  Dover,  about 
to  embark  for  Boulogne,1  but  at  the  port  he  had  an 
unpleasant  experience.  All  his  money  was  confiscated 
in  accordance  with  the  English  law  that  no  coin  might 
be  exported  from  the  realm.2  This  injury  he  never 
either  forgot  or  forgave,  occasionally  using  the  word 
“English”  as  a  synonym  for  “rapacious.”3 

At  Boulogne  he  was  also  rigorously  searched,  but  the 
fact  that  he  had  nothing  left  prevented  him  from  losing 
anything  more.  ViaTournehem  and  Amiens  he  journeyed 
to  Paris.  At  the  little  inn  at  St.-Just-en-chaussee  he  and 
his  English  companion  tried  in  vain  to  procure  a  room  to 
themselves.  They  were  sure  that  the  gentleman  who 
shared  their  room  was  a  robber  and  they  waited  like 
victims  for  the  sacrifice,  watching  and  sleeping  by  turns. 
At  length  Erasmus  arising  at  five  o’clock  on  the  cold 
morning  of  February  2d,  and  finding  that  his  sword  had 
been  removed  from  his  bedside,  aroused  the  house¬ 
hold  and  insisted  on  starting  away  at  once.  A  long 
dispute  over  the  bill  and  the  coins  offered  by  the  guests 
was  followed  by  another  tedious  argument  over  the 
horses.  So  much  for  the  pleasures  of  touring  in  the 
sixteenth  century!4 

The  hope  of  a  benefice  drew  Erasmus  to  England  for 
a  second  time  in  the  summer  or  autumn  of  1505.  A 
living  had  indeed  been  promised  by  Henry  VII,5  and  so 
vivid  was  Erasmus’s  expectation  of  it  that  he  took  the 
trouble  to  get  a  dispensation  from  Pope  Julius  II6  to 
meet  any  difficulties  that  might  arise  from  his  illegitimacy. 
This  dispensation,  which  closely  resembled  that  later 

1  Allen,  i,  p.  274. 

2  Allen,  i,  p.  1 6;  Nichols,  i,  p.  227. 

3  Allen,  ep.  123.  In  contemporary  French  literature  “Anglais”  was  a  name 
applied  to  a  creditor.  It  is  so  found  in  Guillaume  Cretin  (c.  1500)  and  in 
Jodelle  (1552).  Cf.  E.  Fournier:  Le  Theatre  Fran^ais  au  XVIe  et  XVlle 
siecUy  s.  d.,  p.  56,  note. 

4  Allen,  epp.  119,  120;  Nichols,  epp.  122,  ill.  Allen,  iv,  p.  xxi. 

6  Allen,  ep.  189;  Nichols,  ep.  188;  April,  1506. 

6  This  dispensation,  dated  January  4,  1506,  in  Allen,  ep.  187a,  iii,  p.  xxix. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


65 

granted  by  Leo  X,1  was  doubtless,  like  that,  procured 
through  the  assistance  of  powerful  friends  at  court.  The 
Holy  Father  wrote  his  beloved  son  that  the  latter’s  “zeal 
for  religion,  honesty  of  life  and  character,  and  other  laud¬ 
able  merits,  probity,  and  virtue,  for  which  you  have  been 
commended  to  us  by  faithful  testimony,  have  induced 
us  to  show  you  special  grace  and  favor,”  consisting  of 
an  absolution  from  all  defects  inherent  in  illegitimacy 
and  the  right  to  hold  certain  benefices  in  England. 
Erasmus’s  hope,  however,  of  obtaining  one  of  these,  was 
disappointed  at  this  time. 

At  London  he  lodged  either  with  Foxe,  Bishop  of 
Winchester,  or  with  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester.2 
With  the  latter  he  formed  an  intimacy  which  lasted 
through  life.  John  Fisher  was  in  1506  about  fifty-five 
years  old.  He  had  been  made  Vice  Chancellor  of  Cam¬ 
bridge  University  in  1501,  and  had  worked  energetically 
to  infuse  life  into  that  then  somewhat  torpid  institution. 
In  1503  he  had  been  appointed  to  the  chair  of  divinity 
by  its  founder,  the  king’s  mother,  Lady  Margaret  Tudor, 
Countess  of  Richmond,  and  a  year  later  had  become 
Chancellor  of  the  University.  On  April  12,  1505,  he  was 
made  president  of  Queen’s  College,  an  office  which  he 
held  for  three  years.  On  meeting  Erasmus  in  London  at 
this  time  he  probably  took  him  up  to  Cambridge  and 
offered  him  a  professorship.  The  markedly  humanistic 
bias  of  the  statutes  of  Queen’s  drawn  up  at  this  time 
certainly  shows  the  influence  of  the  Dutch  scholar.3 
Erasmus  petitioned  for  and  received  permission  to  study 
for  a  doctorate  in  theology,  but  he  soon  gave  up  the  idea 
in  order  to  go  to  Italy.  The  grace  granted  him  by  the 
university  shows  that  he  was  expected  to  lecture  on 
Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans.4 

1  Allen,  ep.  51 7;  Nichols,  ep.  499.  January  26,  1517. 

2  Allen,  ep.  185,  note. 

3  On  Fisher,  Dictionary  of  National  Biography ,  and  life  by  Bridgett,  1880. 
On  Erasmus  at  Cambridge,  Allen,  i,  pp.  590-593. 

4  Grace  Book  V  containing  the  records  of  the  University  of  Cambridge ,  1501-42, 
ed.  W.  G.  Searle,  1908,  p.  46,  Grace  dated  1505-06. 


66 


ERASMUS 


But  when  Erasmus  returned  again  to  England  some 
years  later  Cambridge  was  more  successful  in  getting  his 
services.  He  arrived  in  England  in  the  autumn  of  1509, 
and  for  a  year  and  a  half  afterward  his  life  is  shrouded 
in  mystery.  Part  of  the  time  was  spent  at  More’s  house, 
part  with  Andrew  Ammonius,  an  Italian  of  Lucca,  Latin 
secretary  first  to  Lord  Mountjoy  and  then  to  Henry 
VIII.1  Though  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  resigned  the 
presidency  of  Queen’s  College,  Cambridge,  in  1508,  he 
still  continued  to  be  Chancellor  of  the  university. 
Regarding  the  co-operation  of  Erasmus  as  necessary 
to  carry  through  the  humanistic  program  he  had  at 
heart,  in  the  summer  of  1 5 1 12  he  secured  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  his  friend  as  lecturer  in  Greek.  Not  long  after 
this  (about  November)  Erasmus  accepted  the  chair 
of  divinity  founded  in  1503  at  Cambridge  by  Lady 
Margaret  Tudor,  and  began  to  lecture  on  Jerome,  and 
probably  on  other  subjects.  One  of  his  pupils,  Robert 
Aldridge,  later  wrote  him  that  the  semester  spent  under 
him,  introducing  both  the  serious  and  the  pleasant  side 
of  literary  study,  was  more  profitable  than  years  with 
other  teachers.3  Another  of  his  pupils  at  this  time  was 
probably  William  Tyndale,4  later  the  famous  reformer 
and  translator  of  the  Bible.  Something  of  Erasmus’s 
spirit  towards  his  work  may  be  seen  in  the  following 
conversation  reported  by  himself.5 

You  will  laugh,  I  know,  at  what  I  tell  now.  When  I  said  something 
about  an  under  teacher,  a  man  of  some  reputation  said  with  a  smile: 
“Who  would  submit  to  pass  his  life  in  a  school  among  boys  who 
could  live  in  any  fashion  whatever  elsewhere  ?”  I  answered  softly 
that  I  thought  it  a  highly  honorable  office  to  bring  up  youth  in 
virtue  and  learning;  that  Christ  had  not  despised  that  age  upon 
which  kindness  is  best  bestowed  and  from  which  the  richest  harvest 

1  Allen,  i,  p.  455. 

*  Allen,  epp.  242,  229.  On  the  lectures,  ep.  233.  On  a  request  from  the 
university  to  Lord  Mountjoy  to  contribute  to  Erasmus’s  salary,  Allen,  1,  p. 
613;  Nichols,  ii,  pp.  73,  88. 

3  Enthoven,  ep.  40.  (1526?) 

4  A.  W.  Pollard:  Records  of  the  English  Bible ,  1911,  p.  4. 

6  Allen,  ep.  237;  Nichols,  ep.  231. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


67 

might  be  expected,  as  indeed  it  is  the  seed-plot  and  planting-ground 
of  the  commonwealth.  I  added  that  any  really  pious  person  would 
be  of  opinion  that  there  was  no  duty  by  which  he  could  better  serve 
God  than  by  drawing’ children  to  Christ.  He  sneered  and  said: 
“If  anyone  was  so  bent  on  serving  Christ  he  had  better  go  into  a 
convent  and  become  ‘religious.’”  I  replied  that  Paul  places  true 
religion  in  offices  of  charity,  and  that  charity  consists  in  doing  all 
the  good  we  can  to  our  neighbors. 

From  his  professorship  Erasmus  received  thirteen 
pounds  a  year  in  addition  to  board  and  lodging,  but 
he  was  not  allowed  to  take  fees  from  the  students, 
according  to  their  customary  practice — an  abstention 
of  which  he  later  made  a  virtue.1  With  John  Fisher 
he  continued  on  terms  of  intimacy  until  death  parted 
them.  In  August,  1516,  he  visited  him  at  Rochester 
for  about  ten  days  in  order  “to  translate  him  into 
Greek,” — i.e.,  to  give  him  lessons  in  that  tongue.2  It 
was  at  this  time  that  he  became  well  acquainted  with 
the  bishop’s  library,  which  he  describes  as  its  owner’s 
paradise.3  While  he  earned  some  money  by  teaching 
and  writing,  he  received  most  from  patrons.  In  Novem¬ 
ber,  1 51 1,  he  returned  from  a  visit  to  London  with  a 
purse  stuffed  with  seventy-two  nobles.4  He  had  no 
false  delicacy  in  requesting  financial  assistance,  though 
he  was  occasionally  snubbed  for  his  pains,  even  by 
his  good  friend  Colet.5  From  another  patron,  Andrew 
Ammonius  of  Lucca,  a  humanist  who  had  sought  and 
made  his  fortune  in  England  as  a  Latin  secretary, 
Erasmus  received  frequent  presents  of  wine.6  He 
greatly  appreciated  these,  and  soon  became  intimate 
with  Ammonius  as  a  kindred  spirit.  Not  only  is  their 
correspondence  extant,  but  there  is  also  preserved  a 
poem  of  the  Italian  humanist  in  acknowledgment  of  a 
gift  of  the  sweetmeat  then  called  marchpane.  Ammonius 

1  Allen,  ep.  296,  i,  p.  569. 

2  Allen,  ep.  452;  Nichols,  ep.  438. 

•To  Fisher,  September  4,  1524,  Lond.  xviii,  47;  LB.  ep.  698. 

4  Allen,  ep.  241. 

6  Allen,  epp.  225,  227,  230,  237. 

6  Allen,  epp.  226,  228,  234,  236,  238,  240. 


68 


ERASMUS 


declares  that  he  has  never  found  anything  nicer  or 
sweeter  than  that  cake,  which  has  long  been  esteemed 
at  the  pope’s  table,  save  only  the  witty  conversation 
of  Erasmus.1 

In  order  to  further  his  own  advancement  Erasmus 
was  not  above  practicing  the  usual  arts  of  suitors, 
which  he  wittily  describes.2  He  was  able  in  1511  to 
bid  up  his  price  in  the  English  market  by  showing  a 
letter3  promising  him  a  benefice  in  Brabant;  he  used 
this  to  get  an  appointment  to  an  English  living  in  the 
gift  of  William  Warham,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
with  whose  praises  his  letters  at  this  time  ring.4  Erasmus 
had  met  Warham,  perhaps  through  Colet’s  introduction, 
in  January,  1506,  or  shortly  before.  At  the  first  inter¬ 
view  he  presented  the  prelate  with  a  translation  from 
Lucian  and  received  in  return  a  present  which  hardly 
came  up  to  his  hopes.5  However,  Warham  proved  one 
of  his  most  constant  patrons  in  after-life.  Of  his  pressing 
attentions  Erasmus  says:6 

It  is  often  our  own  fault  that  friendships  are  broken.  ...  As 
a  youth  I  offended  grievously.  For  had  I  then  met  the  advances 
of  great  men  who  began  to  take  me  up,  I  should  have  been  some¬ 
thing  in  the  literary  world;  but  an  immoderate  love  of  liberty  caused 
me  to  contend  for  a  long  time  with  perfidious  friends  and  with 
dire  poverty.  Nor  should  I  ever  have  ceased  doing  so  had  not 

1  The  poems  of  Ammonius  are  printed  in  an  extremely  rare  volume,  of 
which  a  copy  is  at  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris.  I  take  this,  however, 
from  the  MS.  transcript  at  the  Public  Record  Office,  on  which  see  Calendar 
of  State  Papers  of  Henry  VIII ,  2d  ed.  by  Brodie,  i,  App.  5,  anno  1509.  The 
poem  reads: 

Ad  Erasmum  Theologum  messo  crustulo  quod  marsium  panem  vocant. 

Nil  mi  lautius  esse  suaviusque 
Mensis  pontificum  est  diu  probatum 
Unum  sed  modo  dulcius  repertum 
Argute  eloquium  tuum  est,  Erasme! 

*  Allen,  ep.  250;  Nichols,  ep.  241. 

3  Allen,  ep.  244a;  Nichols,  ep.  406,  anno  1516. 

4  Allen,  epp.  243,  252,  November,  1911,  and  February,  1512.  Cf.  ep.  334, 

May,  1515. 

6  Allen,  i,  p.  5,  and  ep.  188. 

6  Adagia,  chil.  4,  cent.  5,  prov.  1  (1515.)  LB.  ii,  1050. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


69 

William  Warham,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  a  man  not  more 
reverend  for  his  title  and  office  than  for  his  noble  virtues  worthy 
of  a  prelate,  lured  me,  fleeing  as  it  were  from  him,  into  the  net  of 
his  friendship. 

Warham  did  indeed  appreciate  the  worth  of  the 
Dutch  scholar  and  wrote  him,  while  he  was  in  Italy, 
offering  him  money  if  he  would  consent  to  spend  the 
rest  of  his  life  in  England.1  When  Erasmus  did  return 
to  London  Warham  took  him  up  and,  hearing  that  he 
had  a  cold,  sent  him  twenty  gold  “angels,”  as  the  Eng¬ 
lish  coins  were  called  from  the  image  of  an  angel  stamped 
on  them,  hoping  that  among  them  would  be  found 
Raphael  the  physician  of  salvation  who  would  heal  the 
sick  man  and  restore  him  to  his  former  health.2  The 
same  loving  patron  collated  him,  on  March  22,  1512,  to 
the  rectory  of  Aldington  in  Kent,  worth  thirty-three 
pounds  six  shillings  and  eight  pence  a  year;3  as  money 
would  then  buy  at  least  ten  times  what  it  does  now,  this 
income  would  be  the  equivalent  of  some  $1,600  nowadays. 

As  the  appointee  had  no  intention  of  performing  the 
duties  connected  with  this  office,  and  was,  indeed,  on 
account  of  his  ignorance  of  English,  unable  to  do  so, 
he  scrupled  a  little  at  accepting  it.  Warham,  however, 
urged  that  he  did  more  good  by  his  books,  which  taught 
many  preachers,  than  he  would  perform  by  personal 
ministrations  in  a  small  parish.4  Later,  in  deference  to 
his  wishes,  Warham  changed  the  living  for  a  pension,5 
charged  on  the  revenues  of  the  parish,  at  the  same 
time  protesting  that  it  was  never  his  habit  to  burden 
churches  with  payments  to  absentees  but  that  he  felt 

1  Allen,  ep.  214.  There  dated  May,  1509.  In  Geldenhauer’s  Collectanea , 
ed.  Prinsen,  1901,  pp.  19  f,  it  is  dated  1521. 

2  Allen,  ep.  240a;  iii,j>.  xxxi,  November  11,  1511.  On  Raphael  the  Physician, 
Luthers  Werke  (Weimar),  xxxviii,  280  ff. 

3  W.  Vischer:  Erasmiana  (1876),  ii,  1,  p.  8.  Erasmus’s  acceptance  of  the 
benefice  through  four  men  appointed  to  act  as  attorneys  (procuratores,  actores, 
factores  negotiorum  et  nuncii  speciales),  ibid.,  ii,  2.  On  the  value  of  the 
benefice,  Allen,  i,  p.  501. 

4  In  the  Ecclesiastes ,  1535,  LB.  v,  81 1  f;  Nichols,  ii,  p.  64. 

6  Vischer,  II,  3,  p.  13. 


7  o 


ERASMUS 


constrained  to  make  an  exception  of  Erasmus,  “a  most 
consummate  master  of  Latin  and  Greek,  who  like  a 
star  ornaments  our  times  with  his  learning  and  elo¬ 
quence/’  and  who,  moreover,  prefers  England  to  Italy, 
France,  or  Germany.  Wherefore  he  was  granted  a 
pension  of  twenty  pounds  per  annum  from  the  revenues 
of  Aldington.  This  stipend,  regularly  paid  throughout 
the  rest  of  Erasmus’s  life,  was  perhaps  his  most  depend¬ 
able  source  of  income.  The  archbishop  also  procured  for 
Erasmus  exemption  from  the  higher  tax  normally  paid 
by  foreigners  appointed  to  English  benefices.1 

Though  there  is  no  positive  evidence  to  show  that 
Erasmus  ever  visited  his  parish,  he  may  have  done  so 
at  the  time  when  he  made  a  pilgrimage  to  the  shrine 
of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury.2  His  own  interesting 
account  of  this  trip  in  the  Colloquies ,  is  worth  tran¬ 
scribing.  He  was  accompanied  by  Colet,  whose  name 
is  rendered  as  “Gratian  Pullus,  an  Englishman  of  note 
and  authority,  who,  though  probably  not  a  follower  of 
Wyclif,  had  read  his  books.”3 

“The  church  dedicated  to  St.  Thomas,”  he  says, 
“rises  so  majestically  into  the  air,  as  to  strike  even 
the  distant  beholder  with  religious  awe.  Two  vast 
towers  seem  to  greet  the  pilgrim  as  he  approaches, 
while  the  pealing  of  their  bells  echoes  far  and  wide  over 
the  country.  In  the  south  porch  are  three  statues  of 


1  The  archbishop’s  mandate  reprinted  in  A.  T.  Bannister:  Registrum 
Caroli  Bothi  Episcopi  Herefordensis ,  1516-35.  1921,  p.  246. 

2  Allen,  i,  p.  501. 

3  There  is  no  special  reason  to  place  this  visit  at  Easter,  1506,  as  Renaudet 
Revue  Historique ,  cxi,  1912,  p.  260,  does,  because  the  court  made  the  pilgrimage 
then.  On  Erasmus’s  trip,  see  Peregrinatio  religionis  erga.  LB.  i,  684  f,  and 
783  f.  Cf.  Modus  orandiy  LB.  v,  1120.  J.  H.  Lupton  {Life  of  Colet ,  1887,  p. 
206)  puts  this  trip  “presumably  in  1514,”  but  the  time  cannot  be  determined 
with  accuracy.  I  borrow’  freely  from  his  translation  of  the  colloquy,  and  from 
his  excellent  notes.  He  explains  the  name  given  Colet  as  follows:  Gratianus 
is  John,  because  John  means  “grace.”  Pullus,  he  says,  is  derived  from  the 
dark  color  of  Colet’s  clothes,  “vestimentis  pullis.”  But  I  believe  pullus  was 
used  in  the  sense  of  “young  animal”  and  stood  for  “colt.”  The  identification 
is  certain,  as  Colet  is  mentioned  as  Erasmus’s  comrade  in  this  pilgrimage  in 
the  Modus  orandiy  v,  1119  f. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


7i 


armed  men,  they  who  impiously  murdered  the  saint.” 
Their  names,  he  goes  on  to  say,  were  Tuscus,  Fuscus,  and 
Berrus,  thus  distorting  the  names  of  three  of  the  four  re¬ 
puted  assassins, Tracy,  Fitz-Urse,  and  Brito.  After  more 
details  about  the  appearance  of  the  church  he  continues: 

On  the  altar  is  the  point  of  the  sword  with  which  the  archbishop’s 
skull  was  cloven.  We  religiously  kissed  its  sacred  rust,  on  account 
of  our  love  for  the  martyr.  Entering  the  crypt,  the  skull  itself 
was  displayed  to  us,  incased  in  silver,  though  with  a  part  at  the  top 
left  bare  to  be  kissed.  .  .  .  There  also  are  hung  up  in  the  dark  the 
hair  shirts,  girdles,  and  bands  with  which  that  prelate  used  to  subdue 
the  flesh.  The  very  appearance  of  them  made  us  shudder,  such 
a  reproach  were  they  to  our  luxurious  softness.  Thence  we  returned 
into  the  choir,  on  the  north  side  of  which  are  repositories  for  relics. 
When  these  were  unlocked,  from  them  were  produced  an  amazing 
quantity  of  bones:  skulls,  jawbones,  teeth,  hands,  fingers,  and  arms, 
all  of  which  we  adoringly  kissed,  until  my  companion,  a  man  less 
well  disposed  to  this  department  of  religion  than  I  could  have  wished, 
not  over  politely  refused  to  kiss  an  arm  which  had  bleeding  flesh 
still  attached  to  it.  .  .  . 

Next,  the  pilgrims  were  shown  the  immense  store  of 
costly  vestments  and  precious  metals  bestowed  on  the 
shrine  by  pious  persons.  At  this  point  Colet  burst  out 
again. 

“Is  it  true,  good  father,”  said  he,  “that  St.  Thomas  was  very 
good  to  the  poor?”  “Most  true,”  replied  the  other,  and  began 
to  relate  many  instances  of  his  bounty.  .  .  .  “Then,”  continued 
Colet,  “since  the  saint  was  so  liberal  to  the  destitute  when  he  was 
himself  poor  and  in  need  of  money,  do  you  not  think  that  now, 
being  so  rich  and  having  no  use  for  money,  that  he  would  take  it 
patiently  if  some  poor  woman,  for  instance,  with  starving  children 
or  a  sick  husband,  and  destitute  of  all  support,  were  to  ask  pardon 
and  then  take  some  small  part  of  the  great  riches  we  see  for  the 
relief  of  her  family?  .  .  .  I,  for  my  part,  am  quite  convinced  that 
the  saint  would  even  rejoice  at  being  the  means,  in  death  as  in  life, 
of  assisting  by  his  riches  the  destitution  of  the  poor.”  At  this  the 
attendant  began  to  knit  his  brows  and  glare  at  us,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  would  have  turned  us  contumeliously  out,  had  he  not  learned 
that  we  had  an  introduction  from  the  archbishop.  I  pacified  him 
as  best  I  could,  telling  him  that  my  companion  never  meant  a  word 
he  said,  but  was  only  joking,  and  at  the  same  time  I  put  a  few  shillings 
into  the  box. 


72 


ERASMUS 


Next  the  sacristy  was  visited,  and  more  relics  ex¬ 
hibited.  The  guide  had  the  poor  judgment  to  offer 
Colet  as  a  souvenir  a  handkerchief  once  used  by  the 
saint  to  wipe  the  sweat  from  his  brow  and  to  blow  his 
nose,  and  showing  plainly  signs  of  the  use  to  which  it 
had  been  put.  Colet  regarded  it  with  a  derisive  whistle 
and  turned  contemptuously  away.  As  they  were  leav¬ 
ing,  an  old  man  offered  them  St.  Thomas’s  shoe  to 
be  kissed,  whereupon  Colet  flared  up  with:  “What  do 
the  dolts  mean?  Next  they  will  bring  us  his  excrements 
to  kiss.” 

Though  Erasmus  represents  himself  as  deeply  morti¬ 
fied  at  his  friend’s  manners,  he  tells  the  story  in  a  way 
that  shows  he  appreciated  the  humor  of  the  scene. 
There  was  never  a  drier  wit  than  his;  no  writer  has 
ever  had  such  a  gift  of  ridiculing  a  usage  while  pre¬ 
tending  to  hold  up  his  hands  in  holy  horror  at  the 
profanity  of  those  who  did  the  like.  I  have  no  doubt, 
though  it  is  hard  to  prove  it  or  to  bring  it  out  clearer 
in  the  translation,  that  Erasmus  saw  the  absurdity  of 
kissing  the  sword  which  clove  the  archbishop’s  skull, 
just  as  Luther  later  made  fun  of  the  exhibition  of  the 
cord  with  which  Judas  hanged  himself  as  a  relic  in 
Rome.1  In  fact  it  seems  not  unfair  to  say  that  during 
the  exhibition  of  the  relics,  while  Colet  fumed  Erasmus 
tittered.  The  two  attitudes  were  becoming  general  in 
Europe,  and  were  both  ominous  of  the  Protestant 
revolt. 

In  the  summer  of  1512  Erasmus  made  a  pilgrimage 
to  our  Lady  of  Walsingham,  also  described  in  the 
Colloquies .2  This  shrine,  in  the  northern  part  of  Norfolk, 
about  sixty  miles  from  Cambridge,  ranked  with  Loretto 
and  Compostella  as  one  of  the  most  famous  in  Europe, 
and  was  served  by  the  Austin  canons  of  Walsingham 
priory.  Erasmus,  called  Ogygius  in  the  Colloquy,  was 

1  De  Wette:  Luthers  Brief e,  vi,  322. 

2  LB.  i,  778  ff.  Peregrinatio  religionis  erga.  Allen,  ep.  262  and  note.  See 
also  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics ,  x,  20. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


73 


accompanied  by  Robert  Aldridge,  a  student  who  was 
enthusiastic  about  his  teaching.  There  they  beheld 
among  other  relics  St.  Peter’s  knuckle  and  the  milk 
of  the  Virgin  still  liquid  and  saw  her  statue  nod.1  Erasmus 
hung  up  a  votive  hymn  in  Greek  iambics,  declaring 
that,  having  no  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones,  such 
as  other  pilgrims  heap  on  her  shrine,  he  offered  her  the 
best  that  he  had,  a  song.2 

While  living  as  a  student  and  teacher  at  Cambridge 
Erasmus  did  not  entirely  neglect  the  lighter  side  of  life. 
He  continued  the  equestrian  exercise  spoken  of  to 
Faustus  Andrelinus  in  the  first  letter  from  England.3 
Ascham,  who  went  to  Cambridge  in  1530,  heard  from 
Garret  a  tradition  that  “when  Erasmus  had  been  sore 
at  his  boke,  for  lacke  of  better  exercise  he  would  take 
his  horse  and  ride  to  Market  Hill  and  come  agayne.”4 
Incidentally  this  story  shows  that  the  professor  wTas 
living  in  comfortable  style. 

While  at  Cambridge  Erasmus  perhaps  learned  to  know 
the  neighboring  nuns  of  the  convent  of  St.  Clara  at 
Denny.  At  any  rate  we  find  him  later  in  correspondence 
with  them.  In  a  letter  first  printed  in  15285  he  thanks 
them  for  their  love  and  gifts  and  says  he  is  glad  that 
his  former  letter  pleased  them.  He  sends  them  a  little 
flower  culled  from  the  ever-green  garden  of  Isaiah — i.e.9 
a  little  sermon  on  the  text,  “In  silence  and  hope  will 
be  your  strength.” 

Erasmus  was  too  restless  to  be  content  with  any 
•position  long.  After  lecturing  at  Cambridge  for  about 
two  years  he  gave  up  the  work  and  shortly  after  left 
England  for  the  Continent.  The  pension  of  Warham, 
as  well  as  the  enormous  gifts  of  that  prelate  and  others, 


1  These  nodding  images  were  common,  and  a  little  later  were  ruthlessly 
exposed  when  Henry  VIII  visited  the  monasteries.  Cf.  Lindsay:  History 
the  Reformation ,  ii,  1907,  pp.  343  ff. 

2  LB.  v,  1325. 

3  Allen,  ep.  103. 

4  Ascham:  Toxophilus ,  ed.  Arber,  p.  46.  Allen,  i,  p.  532. 

6  Lond.  xxx,  3;  LB.  ep.  497.  Cf.  Allen,  i,  p.  174. 


74 


ERASMUS 


made  him  feel  independent.1  He  hoped  for  higher 
promotion  however,  and  when  disappointed  passionately 
accused  the  perfidy  of  his  friends,  especially  of  Lord 
Mountjoy.2  He  had  been  introduced  at  court,  and  had 
dedicated  to  the  king  a  translation  of  one  of  Plutarch’s 
works3  and  to  Thomas  Wolsey,  the  rising  favorite,  two 
other  translations.4  He  made  nothing  by  them,  however. 

In  July,  1514,  he  left  England  and  spent  a  few 
days  at  the  castle  of  Hammes  near  Calais.  There,  or 
just  before  his  arrival,  he  received  a  letter  from  his 
old  comrade  Servatius,  now  prior  of  the  monastery  of 
Steyn,  warning  him  that  his  protracted  absence  was 
against  the  rule  and  perhaps  threatening  to  take  meas¬ 
ures  to  enforce  his  return  to  the  monastery.  Erasmus 
replied  in  a  long  letter5  excusing  himself,  on  the  ground 
of  his  dislike  of  the  monastic  life  and  the  delicacy  of 
his  health.  He  defended  himself  for  having  doffed 
his  monastic  dress,  and  enlarged  upon  the  uprightness 
of  his  life  and  the  excellent  influence  of  his  works, 
among  which  he  mentioned  the  Enchiridion ,  the  Adages , 
the  Copia ,  and  the  soon-to-appear  Jerome,  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  and  commentary  on  Paul’s  Epistles.  The  Moria 
is  conspicuous  by  its  absence  from  this  list. 

In  May,  1515,  Erasmus  returned  to  England  to  see 
his  old  friends  again,  but  stayed  only  a  very  short  time. 
In  the  summer  of  1516  he  traveled  again  to  London  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  assistance  from  his  powerful 
patrons  in  a  matter  of  importance  and  delicacy.  Just 
ten  years  earlier  he  had  secured  a  dispensation  from 
Pope  Julius  to  hold  certain  benefices  notwithstanding 
his  illegitimate  birth.  He  had,  however,  need  of  a  new 
dispensation  and  also  of  absolution  for  the  performance 


1  In  the  epistle  to  Servatius,  July  8,  1514  (Allen,  ep.  296;  Nichols,  ep.  290), 
Erasmus  says  that  besides  the  pension,  Warham  had  given  him  400  nobles 
(about  £130)  and  other  bishops  100  nobles. 

2  Allen,  ep.  281;  Nichols,  ep.  274. 

3  Allen,  ep.  272. 

4  Allen,  epp.  284,  297. 

6  Allen,  ep.  296;  Nichols,  ep.  290;  July  8,  1514. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


75 


of  certain  acts  which  had  been,  in  the  circumstances, 
unlawful.  Probably  he  had  overstepped  some  rules 
about  clothing;  and  an  effort  was  again  being  made 
to  compel  him  to  return  to  Steyn.  It  seems  likely  that 
Servatius  and  his  old  comrades  there  had  ferreted  out 
fresh  facts  about  Erasmus’s  birth,  for  a  principal  dif¬ 
ference  between  the  new  dispensation  and  the  old  one 
is  that  in  the  former  Erasmus  is  described  as  born  of 
the  union  of  a  bachelor  and  a  widow,  while  in  the  second 
the  union  is  labeled  “damned  and  incestuous,”  meaning 
that  his  father  was  a  priest  at  the  time.  Naturally 
unwilling  to  have  the  affair  made  public,  he  needed 
the  assistance  of  friends  no  less  discreet  than  powerful.1 

Crossing  the  channel  in  July,  he  went  to  London  and 
was  again  the  guest  of  Sir  Thomas  More, apparently  with¬ 
out  much  welcome  from  his  host’s  wife.2  The  interest  of 
Pope  Leo  X  in  the  humanist  having  already  been  aroused, 
it  was  determined  to  approach  him  on  the  matter 
through  Sylvester  Gigli,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  though 
Erasmus  also  wrote  directly  to  the  pontiff.3  Together 
with  this  missive  went  a  long  one  to  a  person  in  Rome, 
probably  Gigli,  which  was  later  published  in  the  Opus 
Epistolarum  of  1529,  with  an  address  to  “Lambert 
Grunnius,  Apostolic  Notary.”  This  letter,  which  has 
been  a  puzzle  to  the  biographers,  is  an  appeal  in  be¬ 
half  of  “a  supremely  gifted  character,”  called  Florence, 
who,  with  his  brother  Antony,  had  been  forced  into 
the  monastic  life,  in  fact  almost  kidnapped,  by  “those 
Pharisees  who  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte.”4  The  story  of  Florence’s  life  is  given  and 
is  easily  recognizable,  in  spite  of  decoration,  as  that 
of  Erasmus  himself.  The  name  “Florence”  was  perhaps 
chosen  in  allusion  to  Florence  Radewyn,  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  after 


1  Allen,  ep.  451. 

2  Allen,  ep.  389. 

3  Allen,  ep.  446;  Nichols,  ep.  434. 

4  Allen,  ep.  447;  Nichols,  epp.  443,  444. 


ERASMUS 


76 

whom  was  named  a  “  Heer-Florenshuis”  at  Deventer.1 
The  identity  of  the  Florence  of  this  letter  with  Erasmus 
was  known  to  the  author’s  amanuensis.2 

The  name  Grunnius  is  also  fictitious,  being  derived 
from  the  Latin  “grunnio,”  to  grunt.  It  is  found  also 
in  the  Praise  of  Folly.  In  this  case  it  seems  to  stand 
for  Sylvester  Gigli,  to  whom,  we  may  conjecture,  the 
original  letter  was  sent,  not  as  coming  from  Erasmus, 
but  from  his  friend  Ammonius.3  When  Erasmus  later 
published  this  letter,  in  which  for  obvious  reasons  he 
had  greatly  exaggerated  the  amount  of  pressure  that 
had  been  put  on  him  as  a  youth  and  the  evils  of  monastic 
life,  he  thought  fit  to  match  it  with  a  reply,  probably 
founded  on  an  actual  letter  sent  to  Ammonius  by  Gigli, 
recounting  how  delighted  was  the  Holy  Father  with  his 
style  and  what  joy  he  took  in  granting  the  request.4 
Ammonius,  in  fact,  approved  of  the  whole  “fiction,” 
and  promised  as  much  zeal  in  his  friend’s  business  as 
if  it  were  his  own.5 

The  further  progress  of  the  negotiation  may  be  traced 
in  the  correspondence  after  Erasmus  had  returned  to 

1  Catalogus  van  de  Incunabelen  in  de  Atheneum-Bibliothek  to  Deventer ,  door 
M.  E.  Kronenberg ,  1917,  p.  xvii. 

2  Allen,  iii,  p.  xxv. 

3  Cf.  Nichols,  ii,  pp.  3 3 7— 3 39;  Allen,  ii,  p.  291.  P.  Kalkoff:  “  Vermittlungs- 
politik  des  Erasmus,”  Archiv  fur  Reformationsgeschichte,  i,  1903,  p.  3,  note. 
Vischer  first  published  the  other  documents  concerning  this  episode  in  his 
Erasmiana  (1876)  and  Doctor  Reich  comments  on  it  in  his  Erasmus  von 
Rotterdam  (1896).  He  proves  that  the  letter  was  sent  to  a  real  person  (though 
not  bearing  the  name  Grunnius).  That  Gigli  was  the  person  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  the  letter  wTas  published  by  Erasmus  in  the  first  collection  of  epistles 
to  appear  after  he  had  heard  of  Gigli’s  death  (April  18,  1521),  by  the  slight 
resemblance  between  the  reply  of  Grunnius  and  the  letter  of  February  9,  1517, 
from  Gigli  to  Ammonius  (Allen,  ii,  p.  321),  and  by  the  fact  that  Lambertus 
Grunnius  is  the  metrical  equivalent  of  Sylvester  Giglius.  This  Latin  conven¬ 
tion  in  the  use  of  fictitious  names  was  frequently,  though  not  always,  followed 
by  Erasmus.  Cf.  Canthelius  for  Cornelius.  That  Ammonius  sponsored  the 
letter  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  answer  is  addressed  to  him.  Cf.  Leo  to 
Ammonius,  January  26,  1517,  Allen,  ep.  517.  Long  after  I  had  written  this 
note  I  found  the  same  conclusions  in  P.  Mestwerdt:  Die  Anfdnge  des  Erasmus , 
1917,  189  IF. 

4  Allen,  ii,  p.  312;  Nichols,  ep.  444. 

6  Allen,  ep.  453;  Nichols,  ep.  439. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


77 


the  Continent.  Ammonius  wrote  to  Leo  in  September1 
and  received  an  answer  in  October,2  saying  that  the 
pope  was  favorably  disposed,  but  could  not  act  until 
he  had  returned  to  Rome,  and  that  the  Datary  must 
receive  a  sop.  This  Ammonius  promised,  but  the  next 
answer  was  so  tardy  in  arriving  that  Erasmus  felt 
extreme  anxiety,  fearing  that  “all  was  lost.”3  In 
December  Ammonius  wrote  that  Leo  was  favorable 
and  that  Gigli  had  forwarded  a  draft  dispensation, 
which  he  sent  on  to  Erasmus  for  corrections.4  In 
February,  1517,  the  humanist  again  offered  more  money, 
and  on  March  11  thanked  his  friend  at  court  for  his 
services.5  A  day  or  two  later  he  received  the  news 
that  the  dispensation  had  arrived  in  London  and  that 
it  would  be  necessary  for  him  to  come  to  London  to 
confess  and  receive  absolution.  On  March  15th  he 
agreed  to  do  this,  notwithstanding  his  hatred  of  the 
sea.6  Even  before  he  went  to  England,  however,  he 
wrote,  on  April  4th,  notes  of  thanks  to  Leo  and  Gigli.7 
When  he  arrived  in  London,  he  found  the  dispensation, 
dated  January  26,  1517, 8  ready.  In  it  Pope  Leo  granted 
to  Ammonius  the  right  of  absolving  a  certain  person 
from  all  penalties  incurred  by  having  put  off  his  habit, 
for  having  said  masses,  or  for  having  done  other  things 
unlawful  for  a  bastard  to  do.  He  also  allowed  this  per¬ 
son  to  hold  certain  benefices,  which,  apparently,  were 
expected  to  be  English.9  Under  this  power  Ammonius 
absolved  Erasmus  on  April  9th. 

1  Allen,  ep.  466. 

2  Allen,  ep.  479;  cf.  Brewer:  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  Fill,  ii,  nos. 

2394-95- 

3  Allen,  ep.  483. 

4  Allen,  ep.  498. 

6  Allen,  ep.  551. 

6  Allen,  ep.  552.  This  letter,  inadvertently  printed  in  the  Farrago ,  was 
carefully  omitted  from  all  later  editions  until  Allen  restored  it. 

7  Allen,  epp.  566,  567. 

8  Allen,  ep.  517. 

9  As  shown  by  the  reference  to  the  constitutions  of  Otho  and  Ottoboni, 
unless  this  wording  is  merely  copied  from  Erasmus’s  earlier  dispensation 
(Allen,  iii,  p.  xxix)  without  any  special  significance  being  attached  to  it. 


78 


ERASMUS 


With  the  main  document  Leo  sent  two  letters,  the 
first  private,  giving  his  reasons  for  granting  Erasmus’s 
request  together  with  certain  details  as  to  the  benefices 
to  be  enjoyed,  the  second  of  a  more  general  nature, 
testifying  to  the  scholar’s  merits,  and  suitable  for  show¬ 
ing  to  friends  or  for  publication.  Gigli  also  wrote  a 
note  of  congratulation.1 

This  was  the  last  time  that  Erasmus  ever  saw  England. 
With  such  good  friends  and  generous  patrons  in  that 
country,  it  is  perhaps  strange  that,  after  having  spent 
five  years  in  it,  he  did  not  settle  there.  The  reasons 
are  given  by  himself.  He  feared  first  the  popular 
hostility  to  foreigners,  which  showed  so  ugly  a  face 
on  “Evil  Mayday,”  1517.  On  that  date,  just  after 
his  own  return  from  London,  the  populace  rose  against 
the  foreign  merchants,  particularly  his  fellow  country¬ 
men  the  Flemings,  and  slaughtered  some  of  them. 
Erasmus  also  feared  that  the  tyranny  of  the  king  would 
impose  on  him  a  servitude  which  he  could  ill  brook. 
The  later  acts  of  the  despot  gave  but  too  much  color 
to  his  fears.2 

I  have  left  to  the  last  some  account  of  Erasmus’s 
relations  with  his  two  friends,  Thomas  More  and  John 
Colet,  for  his  acquaintance  with  them  extended  over 
many  years  and  was  kept  alive  by  frequent  corre¬ 
spondence  during  long  absences.  There  is  a  story  that 
Erasmus  and  More  first  met  at  the  Lord  Mayor’s 
table  in  London  and  conversed  for  some  time  without 
knowing  each  other’s  names,  until  the  one  exclaimed, 
“You  are  either  More  or  no  one,”  and  the  other  replied, 
“You  are  either  Erasmus  or  the  devil.”3  But  this 
legend  bears  the  stamp  of  fiction.  In  all  probability 
the  meeting  occurred  at  Bedwell  or  Greenwich  in  1499. 
Thomas  More  was  then  twenty-one  years  old,4  already 

1  Allen,  epp.  518-520. 

2  Erasmus  to  More,  c.  July  10,  1517.  Allen,  ep.  597. 

3  Cresacre  More:  Life  of  Sir  Thomas  More ,  1631,  p.  93. 

4  On  More’s  age,  Allen,  i,  p.  266,  and  iii,  p.  xxiii.  Apparently  he  was  bom 
on  February  6,  1478. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


79 


practising  law,  but  not  relinquishing  the  study  of  the 
humanities.  It  was  a  case  of  love  at  first  sight;  the 
earliest  letter,1  written  by  Erasmus  on  his  thirtieth 
birthday,  is  already  full  of  the  greatest  affection.  Of 
his  friend  he  has  left  us  a  sketch,  no  less  perfect  in  its 
way  than  are  the  pictures  by  his  contemporary  Holbein.2 

In  stature  More  is  neither  tall  nor  notably  short  and  there  is 
such  symmetry  in  all  his  members  that  you  want  nothing.  His 
complexion  is  pale  rather  than  sallow,  with  just  the  faintest  flush 
under  the  skin;  his  hair  is  dark  yellow,  or,  if  you  prefer,  light  brown; 
his  beard  is  sparse,  his  eyes  bluish  gray  and  spotted,  which  kind  is 
said  to  argue  a  most  happy  nature  and  is  considered  especially 
amiable  in  England,  though  over  here  [in  Brabant]  we  prefer  black. 
They  say  no  kind  of  eyes  are  less  susceptible  to  faults.  His  face, 
agreeing  with  his  nature,  and  wearing  an  habitual  smile,  plainly 
shows  his  pleasant  and  friendly  jocularity.  Frankly,  his  face  better 
expresses  merriment,  though  far  removed  from  thoughtless  or 
scurrilous  folly,  than  gravity  or  dignity.  His  right  shoulder  is  a 
little  higher  than  his  left,  especially  when  he  walks,  which  is  a  defect 
not  of  nature,  but  of  custom,  like  most  of  our  habits.  In  the  rest  of 
his  body  there  is  nothing  to  offend.  His  hands  are  somewhat  coarse, 
at  least  compared  with  the  rest  of  him.  From  boyhood  he  was 
always  most  negligent  of  his  body,  so  that  he  did  not  even  care 
for  that  which  Ovid  says  men  should  especially  care  for.  Now 
perhaps  he  may  think  it  time  to  throw  overboard  whatever  beauty 
he  had  as  a  youth;  but  I  knew  the  man  when  he  was  but  twenty- 
three,  for  he  is  now  not  much  over  forty. 

His  health,  even  rather  than  robust,  is  sufficient  for  his  civic 
duties  and  very  little  subject  to  illness.  We  hope  that  he  may 
yet  live  long,  for  his  father  attained  a  green  old  age. 

I  never  saw  anyone  less  exacting  in  the  pleasures  of  the  table. 
Until  early  manhood  he  preferred  drinking  water,  as  his  father  did. 
But  lest  this  habit  should  embarrass  his  guests  he  would  pretend 
to  drink  out  of  a  pewter3  cup,  filled  mostly,  if  not  altogether,  with 
water.  It  being  the  custom  in  England  to  invite  a  friend  to  drink 
out  of  the  same  cup  of  wine,  he  will  touch  the  rim  with  his  lips  so 
as  not  to  seem  to  omit  the  ceremony  altogether,  just  as  he  performs 
other  common  civilities.  He  prefers  beef,  salt  fish,  and  coarse  bread, 
especially  if  sour,  to  the  food  usually  delighted  in.  He  is  not  averse 
to  other  corporal  pleasures.  He  is  fond  of  things  made  of  milk, 
and  of  the  eggs  of  hens  and  of  other  birds. 

1  Allen,  ep.  114;  Nichols,  ep.  103.  October  28,  1499. 

2  Allen,  ep.  999.  Erasmus  to  Hutten,  July  23,  1519. 

3  Stanneus,  an  alloy  of  silver  and  lead. 


8o 


ERASMUS 


His  voice  is  neither  loud  nor  very  low,  but  easily  heard.  Though 
not  sonorous  or  soft,  it  is  well  adapted  to  speaking,  for  he  does  not 
seem  by  nature  formed  for  music,  though  he  delights  in  it.  He 
articulates  with  marvelous  distinctness,  neither  hurriedly  nor  slowly. 

He  delights  in  simple  dress,  nor  does  he  wear  silk  nor  purple  nor 
gold  chains  except  on  festive  occasions  when  forced  to.  It  is  remark¬ 
able  how  negligent  he  is  of  those  polite  forms  which  are  commonly 
esteemed.  Not  expecting  them  from  others,  he  does  not  scrupulously 
observe  them  himself,  though  not  ignorant  of  them  either  in  assem¬ 
blies  or  at  meals.  He  thinks  it  womanish  and  unworthy  of  a  man  to 
waste  time  in  these  follies. 

He  has  long  been  averse  to  courts  because  he  always  hated  tyranny 
and  loved  equality.  For  you  will  hardly  find  any  court  so  modest 
as  to  be  without  much  bustle  and  ambition  and  deceit  and  luxury, 
even  if  not  tyranny.  He  could  only  be  tempted  into  the  court  of 
Henry  VIII  with  much  trouble,  though  he  could  wish  for  nothing 
more  civil  and  moderate  than  this  prince.  By  nature  he  desires 
freedom  and  leisure,  though  only  to  use  that  leisure  well,  for  when 
business  calls  him  he  is  as  patient  and  vigilant  as  any. 

He  seems  born  and  made  for  friendship,  which  he  cultivates 
sincerely  and  tenaciously.  Nor  does  he  fear  the  multitude  of  friends 
so  little  praised  by  Hesiod.  He  is  open  to  the  claims  of  all.  By 
no  means  peevish  in  his  love,  he  is  most  obliging  in  cherishing 
friendship  and  most  constant  in  keeping  it.  If  by  chance  he 
becomes  acquainted  with  anyone  whose  vices  he  cannot  cure  he 
rather  wTithdrawrs  from  him  than  breaks  with  him.  When  he  finds 
sincere  friends  he  so  delights  in  their  society  and  conversation  that 
he  seems  to  place  the  chief  felicity  of  life  therein.  He  simply  detests 
balls,  dice,  cards,  and  other  games  by  which  the  common  run  of 
gentry  while  away  their  time.  Moreover,  though  negligent  of  his 
own  interests,  no  one  is  truer  in  caring  for  the  interests  of  his 
friends.  What  more  can  I  say?  If  anyone  seeks  the  example  of  a 
true  friend  he  will  find  it  nowhere  better  than  in  More.  The  sweet¬ 
ness  of  his  manners  is  so  engaging  and  his  comity  so  rare  that  there 
is  no  one  so  sad  whom  he  cannot  cheer  and  no  mood  so  desperate 
that  he  cannot  dispel  it. 

From  a  boy  he  so  delighted  in  jokes  that  he  seemed  born  for 
pleasantry,  though  he  is  never  scurrilous  or  sarcastic.  As  a  youth 
he  both  acted  and  wrote  comedies. 

Some  anecdotes  of  More’s  practical  jokes  are  pre¬ 
served,  anonymously,  in  Erasmus’s  colloquy  Exorcism 
or  the  Spectre ,  printed  in  August,  1524.  He  there  tells 
how,  while  a  party  was  riding  to  Richmond,  one  Polus, 
a  son-in-law  of  Faunus,  pretended  to  see  an  immense, 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


81 


fiery  dragon  in  the  sky  and,  though  there  was  really 
nothing  there,  persuaded  the  whole  party,  one  after 
another,  to  say  that  they  actually  saw  the  portent,  the 
rumor  of  which  went  all  over  England.  At  another 
time  Polus  played  a  trick  on  a  foolish  priest  named 
Faunus  (not  his  father-in-law,  but  another  man  of  the 
same  name),  with  the  aid  of  his  (Polus’s)  son-in-law, 
the  husband  of  his  eldest  daughter  and  a  man  of  won¬ 
drous  jocund  spirit,  who  did  not  abhor  such  foolishness. 
One  of  the  two  dressed  up  as  a  cacodemon  and  appeared 
in  answer  to  a  spell  recited  by  Faunus,  and  wrote  to 
him  a  letter  dated  “The  Empyrean,  September  13, 
1498. The  identification  of  the  persons  in  this  story 
has  been  a  riddle  to  all  biographers,  most  of  whom 
would  see  More  in  Polus.  But  this  solution  seems  to 
me  impossible,  both  because  More  was  too  young  at 
the  date  given  to  have  a  son-in-law,  and  because  Polus 
is  said  to  be  fond  of  hunting  and  hawking,  whereas 
More  saw  no  pleasure  in  “the  seelye  and  wofull  beastes 
slaughter  and  murder/’2  The  Greek  w^ord  Polos  means 
“colt,”  and  the  name  here  points  rather  to  More’s 
father-in-law,  John  Colt.  More  would  then  be  the 
son-in-law,  the  youth  of  “wondrous  jocund  spirit.” 
As  he  married  probably  in  1505,  the  date  “1498” 
must  be  corrected.  The  scene  of  the  pranks  is  said 
to  be  a  country  place  near  London,  which  would  cor¬ 
respond  well  with  Colt’s  estate  at  Netherhall  in  Essex. 
The  interlocutors  in  the  comedy  are  called  “Thomas” 
and  “Anselm.”  The  first  was  probably  meant  to  be 
Thomas  Grey,  a  young  Englishman  of  whom  Erasmus 
was  fond,  and  one  who  very  well  knew  both  More  and 
Colt,  for  his  ancestral  property  was  adjacent  to  that  of 
Colt.3  The  name  of  the  other  interlocutor,  Anselm, 
would  suggest  William  Warham,  who,  like  the  earlier 
Anselm,  wTas  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.4 

1  LB.  i,  749  ff. 

*  Utopia ,  book  ii,  Bohn  ed.  p.  129.  Life  of  More ,  by  W.  H.  Hutton,  p.  47. 

3  Allen,  ep.  829;  To  More,  c.  April  23,  1518.  Cf. 

4  Erasmus  knew  a  Swiss  Thomas  Anselm,  but  he  is  out  of  the  question. 


82 


ERASMUS 


Erasmus  loved  to  play  jokes  on  his  witty  friend,  one 
of  which  was  a  letter  in  trochaic  tetrameter,  written 
without  division  of  lines,  as  prose,  and  sent  to  see  if 
More  would  detect  the  trick.  As  he  failed  to  do  so,  a 
good  laugh  was  raised  at  him.  “For,”  says  Erasmus, 

he  even  loved  jokes  made  at  his  own  expense.  It  was  his  fond¬ 
ness  for  wit  and  fun,  and  especially  for  Lucian,  that  made  me  write 
the  Praise  of  Folly,  though  to  do  so  was  like  making  a  camel  dance. 
But  in  all  human  affairs,  light  or  serious,  he  takes  pleasure.  If 
he  has  to  do  with  learned  men  he  delights  in  their  genius;  if  with 
fools,  in  their  folly;  for  he  can  accommodate  himself,  with  great 
tact,  to  all  dispositions.  With  women  in  general,  and  even  with 
his  own  wife,  he  does  nothing  but  sport  and  joke.  You  might  call 
him  another  Democritus,  or  rather  that  Pythagorean  philosopher 
who  wandered  idly  through  the  market  place  only  to  see  the  tumult 
of  buyers  and  sellers.  For  though  no  one  is  less  carried  away  by 
the  judgment  of  the  common  herd,  no  one  is  less  a  stranger  to  public 
opinion. 

His  special  pleasure  is  to  study  the  forms,  minds,  and  habits 
of  animals.  There  is  no  species  of  bird  which  he  does  not  keep 
at  his  house,  as  well  as  a  quantity  of  rare  animals — monkeys,  foxes, 
ferrets,  weasels  and  the  like.  He  eagerly  buys  whatever  is  exotic 
or  rare  and  has  his  house  so  arranged  that  there  is  always  some¬ 
thing  to  catch  the  eye  of  anyone  who  enters,  and  he  renews  his 
pleasure  as  often  as  he  sees  anyone  else  pleased. 

More’s  love  of  animals  is  amusingly  illustrated  by 
a  story  told  in  the  Colloquies.1  While  at  his  house 
Erasmus  saw  a  monkey  protect  some  rabbits  from  a 
weasel.  Just  as  the  weasel  had  dug  under  the  cage 
in  which  the  rabbits  were  kept,  the  monkey  moved  it 
along  the  ground  to  the  wall,  thus  showing  as  much 
intelligence  as  a  man.  Continuing  Erasmus’s  biography: 

In  his  youth  he  was  not  averse  from  the  love  of  maidens,  but 
innocently,  for  he  preferred  rather  to  captivate  than  to  enjoy  them, 
so  that  their  souls  and  not  their  bodies  were  joined. 

From  his  first  years  he  eagerly  devoured  the  classics.  As  a  youth 
he  applied  himself  to  Greek  philosophy  to  such  an  extent  that  his 
father,  a  good  and  otherwise  sensible  man,  refused  to  help  him 
and  almost  disinherited  him,  thinking  these  studies  detrimental 
to  the  practice  of  law.  This  illiberal  profession  is  in  England  the 


1  LB.  i,  877. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


83 

surest  road  to  power,  wherefore  the  greater  part  of  the  gentry  apply 
themselves  to  it  and  insist  that  it  cannot  be  mastered  without  several 
years  of  hard  application.  Although  the  genius  of  young  More, 
born  to  better  things,  shrank  from  this  study,  yet  after  tasting  the 
learning  of  the  schools  he  applied  himself  so  well  to  jurisprudence 
that  litigants  consult  no  one  more  readily,  nor  do  those  who  have 
never  done  anything  else  make  more  at  the  profession.  So  great 
is  the  power  and  quickness  of  his  mind!  Moreover,  he  spent  no 
little  labor  on  the  volumes  of  the  fathers.  While  yet  a  young  man 
he  publicly  lectured  to  a  large  audience  on  Augustine’s  City  of  God , 
nor  were  old  priests  ashamed  to  learn  theology  from  a  young  layman, 
nor  did  they  regret  having  done  so. 

At  this  time  he  applied  his  whole  mind  to  religion,  and  with  fasts, 
vigils  and  the  like  meditated  taking  orders.  This  course  was  more 
wise  than  is  that  of  those  who  make  so  arduous  a  profession  before 
they  have  previously  made  trial  of  themselves.  The  only  thing 
that  quenched  his  preference  for  this  kind  of  life  was  his  desire  to 
marry.  He  chose,  therefore,  to  be  a  faithful  husband  rather  than 
an  unchaste  priest.  So  he  married  a  young  virgin  of  good  family 
and  one  who  had  spent  all  her  time  in  the  country  with  her  parents 
and  with  children,  and  was,  therefore,  uneducated,  in  order  that  he 
might  form  her  to  his  own  character.  He  had  her  instructed  in 
literature  and  made  skillful  in  all  kinds  of  music,  but  just  as  he  had 
almost  made  her  such  a  person  as  he  would  have  liked  to  pass  his 
life  with,  a  premature  death  took  her  away,  though  not  until  after 
she  had  borne  some  children,  of  whom  three  girls,  Margaret,  Aloys, 
and  Cecily,  and  one  boy,  John,  survive. 

The  girl  whom  he  thus  married  was  Jane  Colt,  the 
eldest  daughter  of  John  Colt,  of  Netherhall,  near 
Roydon,  in  Essex.  More  began  by  loving  her  younger 
sister,  who  was  the  prettier,  but,  considering  that  it 
would  be  a  shame  to  the  elder  to  see  her  junior  married 
first,  he  took  Jane.  They  were  married  probably  in 
1505,  and  set  up  housekeeping  in  a  small  house  in  one 
of  the  narrow  streets  of  Bucklersbury,  near  Cheapside, 
London.  Erasmus  was  in  England  during  the  first 
year  of  their  married  life,  and  perhaps  himself  wit¬ 
nessed  what  he  tells  of  it,  without  mentioning  names, 
in  his  Colloquy  Uxor ,  first  published  in  August,  1 523 : 1 


1  LB.  i,  704;  the  identification  is  due  to  Mr.  P.  S.  Allen,  London  Times 
Literary  Supplement,  December  26,  1918. 


ERASMUS 


I  know  a  man  of  good  birth  and  education  and  singularly  clever 
and  tactful.  He  had  married  a  young  girl  of  seventeen,  whose  life 
had  been  spent  without  a  break  in  her  parents’  home  in  the  country, 
where  noblemen  usually  like  to  reside,  for  hunting  and  hawking. 
He  wished  his  bride  quite  undeveloped,  that  he  might  more  easily 
mold  her  to  his  own  tastes.  He  began  to  interest  her  in  books  and 
music,  to  accustom  her  to  repeat  the  substance  of  sermons  she  heard, 
and  to  train  her  to  other  useful  accomplishments.  All  this  was 
quite  new  to  the  girl.  She  had  been  brought  up  at  home  in  complete 
idleness,  playing  and  talking  to  the  servants.  Very  soon  she  began 
to  be  bored,  and  refused  to  comply.  If  her  husband  urged  her, 
she  would  burst  into  tears;  sometimes  even  throwing  herself  to 
the  ground  and  beating  her  head  on  the  floor,  as  though  she  wished 
to  die.  As  this  went  on,  the  young  man,  concealing  his  vexation, 
suggested  that  they  should  pay  a  visit  to  her  parents  in  the  country, 
with  which  she  joyfully  fell  in.  On  arrival  he  left  her  with  her  mother 
and  sisters,  and  went  off  with  her  father  to  hunt.  As  soon  as  the  two 
were  alone,  he  told  his  story:  how  instead  of  the  happy  companion 
he  had  hoped  for,  he  found  his  wife  perpetually  in  tears  and  quite 
intractable;  and  he  begged  for  assistance  in  curing  her. 

“I  have  given  her  to  you,”  was  the  reply,  “and  she  is  yours. 
If  she  doesn’t  obey  you,  use  your  rights  and  beat  her  into  a  better 
frame  of  mind.” 

“I  know,”  said  the  husband,  “what  my  rights  are;  but  I  would 
rather  the  change  were  effected  with  your  aid  and  authority,  than 
resort  to  such  extreme  measures.” 

The  father  consented,  and  after  a  day  or  two  found  an  opportunity 
to  speak  with  his  daughter  alone.  Setting  his  face  to  severity  he 
said: 

“You  are  a  plain  child,  with  no  particular  charm:  and  I  used 
often  to  be  afraid  I  should  have  difficulty  in  getting  you  a  husband. 
After  a  great  deal  of  trouble  I  found  you  one  whom  any  woman 
might  envy;  a  man  who,  if  he  weren’t  very  kind,  would  hardly 
consider  you  worth  having  as  a  servant;  and  then  you  rebel  against 
him.” 

And  with  this  he  grew  so  angry  that  he  seemed  about  to  beat  her: 
all  of  course,  in  pretense,  for  he  is  a  clever  actor.  The  girl  was 
frightened,  and  also  moved  by  the  truth  of  what  he  had  said.  Fall¬ 
ing  at  his  feet,  she  vowed  to  do  better  in  future;  and  he  promised 
continuance  of  his  affection,  if  she  would  keep  her  word.  Then 
returning  to  her  husband,  whom  she  found  alone  in  his  room,  she 
fell  down  before  him  and  said: 

“Until  now  I  have  known  neither  you  nor  myself.  Henceforward 
you  shall  find  me  quite  different:  only  forget  what  is  past.” 

He  sealed  her  repentance  with  a  kiss;  and  in  this  happy  state  of 
mind  she  continued  till  her  death.  Indeed,  so  great  was  the  affection 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


85 

that  grew  up  between  them  that  there  was  nothing,  however  humble, 
that  she  would  not  do  at  his  wish.  Some  years  after  she  used  fre¬ 
quently  to  congratulate  herself  on  having  such  a  husband:  “without 
him,”  she  would  say,  “I  should  be  the  most  miserable  of  women.” 

In  another  place  Erasmus  tells  how  More  delighted 
his  bride  with  a  present  of  sham  jewels,  apparently 
letting  her  think  them  real.  If  the  picture  he  gives  of 
their  married  life  is  not  the  happiest  possible,  one  must 
remember  that  deep  love  and  joy  came  before  the  end. 
In  the  epitaph  he  wrote  she  was  his  “darling  wife.” 

More  was  not  long  able  to  remain  single  [Erasmus  continues], 
though  advised  to  do  so  by  his  friends,  but  a  few  months1  after 
the  death  of  his  first  wife  he  married  a  widow,  more  to  give  care  to 
his  family  than  for  his  own  pleasure ;  for  indeed  he  used  to  say 
in  joke  she  was  neither  pretty  nor  a  maiden,  but  a  keen  and  vigilant 
matron.  With  her,  nevertheless,  he  always  lived  as  sweetly  and 
amicably  as  if  she  had  been  ever  so  beautiful  a  girl.  Hardly  any 
husband  obtains  as  much  obedience  from  his  wife  by  command  as  he 
does  by  blandishments  and  jokes.  .  .  .  With  like  amiability  he 
rules  his  whole  family,  in  which  there  is  no  tragic  strife.  .  .  .  More 
never  sends  anyone  away  with  enmity  on  either  side.  Indeed, 
happiness  seems  fated  to  this  household,  in  which  no  one  ever  lived 
who  was  not  carried  on  to  better  fortune,  and  none  who  has  lived 
here  has  suffered  any  stain  on  his  reputation. 

More’s  second  wife  was  a  certain  Mrs.  Alice  Middleton, 
a  widow  with  a  daughter  of  her  own.  She  had  the 
reputation  among  his  friends  of  being  “a  crook-beaked 
harpy.”2  Probably  she  had  more  to  endure  than 
Erasmus  realized.  Her  gifted  husband  wrote  that  in 
Utopia  husbands  chastize  their  wives,  and  he  also 
composed  some  epigrams  on  marriage  that  make  pain¬ 
ful  reading.  In  one  of  the  harshest  he  declares  that  a 
wife  is  a  heavy  burden,  but  may  be  useful  if  she  dies 
quickly  and  leaves  her  husband  all  her  property.3 

Though  somewhat  autocratic  with  his  children,  More 
loved  them  deeply,  especially  his  gifted  daughter 

1  Just  one  month,  according  to  other  authorities. 

2  Henry  VIIFs  Latin  secretary,  Ammonius,  calls  her  this.  Allen,  ep.  451. 

3  T.  Mori  Opera ,  1689,  p.  241. 


86 


ERASMUS 


Margaret,  and  he  was,  in  turn,  adored  by  them.  He 
instructed  them  all,  girls  as  well  as  the  boy,  in  Latin, 
making  them  so  wonderfully  proficient  as  to  excite  the 
admiration  of  Erasmus,  to  whom  they  all  wrote  letters.1 
When  Sir  Thomas’s  fortune  had  grown  great  he  built 
himself  a  house  in  Chelsea,  then  not  part  of  the  great 
city  but  a  little  suburb,  which  More  called  “his  country 
place.”  Erasmus  describes  it  and  the  family  in  a 
letter  of  1532.2 

More  built  himself  on  the  banks  of  the  Thames  not  far  from  the 
city  of  London  a  country  seat  which  was  neither  sordid  nor  invidi¬ 
ously  magnificent,  and  yet  ample;  there  he  lives  with  his  best  friends, 
his  wife,  his  son  and  daughter-in-law,  three  daughters  and  as  many 
sons-in-law,  with  eleven  grandchildren.  .  .  .  He  loves  his  old  wife 
as  if  she  were  a  girl  of  fifteen.  .  .  .  You  would  say  that  his  house 
was  another  Academy  of  Plato — but  I  wrong  his  home  in  comparing 
it  with  Plato’s  Academy,  wffiere  questions  of  mathematics,  and 
occasionally  of  morals,  were  discussed.  More’s  house  should  rather 
be  called  the  school  of  the  Christian  religion.  .  .  .  There  is  no 
quarreling  nor  scolding;  no  one  is  idle. 

In  his  life  of  his  friend,  Erasmus  adds : 

More  is  most  averse  from  filthy  lucre.  He  has  applied  to  his 
children’s  wants  as  much  as  he  thinks  they  need;  the  remainder 
he  freely  spends.  Although  deriving  his  income  from  legal  business, 
yet  he  always  gives  true  and  friendly  counsel  to  his  clients,  with  an 
eye  more  to  their  advantage  than  to  his  own.  He  persuades  most 
to  settle  their  disputes  out  of  court  as  the  cheapest  way.  If  they 
refuse  to  do  so  he  indicates  the  way  of  least  expense,  even  though  his 
clients  delight  in  litigation.  In  London,  where  he  was  bom,  he  was 
judge  in  civil  cases  for  some  years.  As  this  office  is  little  burden¬ 
some  (for  the  court  sits  only  on  Thursday  mornings)  it  is  considered 
especially  honorable.  No  judge  ever  decided  more  cases  or  more 
uprightly,  so  that  he  much  endeared  himself  to  his  fellow  citizens.  .  .  . 

Once  and  again  More  has  been  sent  on  legations,  in  which  he  has 
borne  himself  so  sagely  that  His  Majesty  Henry  VIII  never  rested 
until  he  had  drawn  the  man  into  his  court.  Why  should  I  not  say 
“drawn”?  For  no  one  ever  strove  harder  to  be  admitted  to  a  court 
than  he  did  to  keep  out  of  it.  For  truly,  when  the  excellent  king 

1  To  Bude,  Anderlecht,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1233. 

2  Erasmus  to  Faber,  Lond.  xxvii,  8,  LB.  App.  ep.  426.  Though  without 
date,  it  may  be  placed  with  much  probability  toward  the  end  of  1532. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


87 

purposed  to  surround  himself  with  learned,  grave,  and  wise  men, 
among  others  he  came  upon  More,  and  became  so  intimate  with 
him  that  it  seemed  he  would  never  let  him  go.  For  if  he  were  serious 
he  found  no  better  counselor,  or  if  he  were  minded  to  relax  his  mind 
with  pleasant  stories,  he  found  no  companion  more  festive.  ...  Yet 
More  never  became  in  the  least  proud,  but  in  the  midst  of  such 
momentous  business  remembered  his  old  friends  and  returned  now 
and  then  to  his  beloved  literature.  .  .  . 

But  I  pause  to  mention  those  studies  which  most  recommended 
me  to  More  and  More  to  me.  In  his  youth  he  chiefly  devoted  him¬ 
self  to  verse,  but  soon  turned  his  attention  to  polishing  his  prose 
and  practiced  all  kinds  of  composition.  Why  should  I  say  how  well 
he  succeeded,  especially  to  you  wTho  have  his  books  in  your  hands? 
He  especially  delighted  in  declamations  and  preferred  to  take  the 
harder  side  that  he  might  thereby  better  exercise  his  talents.  It 
was  on  this  account  that  as  a  youth  he  wrote  a  dialogue  to  defend 
Plato’s  community  of  wives.  He  answered  Lucian’s  Tyrannicide 
and  wished  to  have  me  as  an  opponent  in  this  argument  so  as  to 
make  his  task  all  the  harder.  He  published  the  Utopia  with  the 
purpose  of  pointing  out  what  was  amiss  in  the  state,  especially  in 
his  own  England.  He  wrote  the  second  book  first  to  while  away 
the  time,  and  later  added  the  first  book  ex  tempore.  For  this  reason 
there  is  some  inequality  in  the  style,  though  you  can  hardly  find 
anyone  else  who  speaks  better  ex  tempore ,  for  a  felicity  of  language 
accompanies  his  happily  constituted  mind.  His  intellect  is  ready 
and  alert,  his  memory  good  and,  as  it  were,  well  ordered,  so  that 
he  can  promptly  recall  whatever  the  time  and  subject  require. 
In  debate  no  one  is  more  acute,  so  that  he  can  often  make  the  most 
eminent  theologians  work  while  discussing  their  own  subjects  with 
them.  John  Colet,  a  man  of  sharp  and  exact  judgment,  was  wTont 
to  call  him  the  unique  genius  of  England,  although  there  are  many 
brilliant  Englishmen.  More  is  a  man  of  true  piety,  though  most 
averse  from  superstition.  .  .  .  He  chats  with  his  friends  of  a  future 
life  in  such  a  way  that  one  may  know  he  speaks  sincerely  and  not 
without  good  hope.  Such  is  More,  and  yet  some  say  good  Christians 
can  only  be  found  in  monasteries! 

The  famous  Utopia ,  here  mentioned,  is  one  of  the 
world’s  great  books.  It  was  largely  written  at  the 
house  of  Peter  Gilles,  of  Antwerp,  while  More  was  on 
one  of  the  embassies  spoken  of  by  Erasmus.  The 
manuscript  must  have  been  nearly  complete  when  the 
Dutch  scholar  visited  his  English  friend  at  London  in 
the  summer  of  1516,  but  it  was  not  sent  to  him  for 


88 


ERASMUS 


correction  until  September  3d.1  He  carefully  polished 
the  style  and  added  some  notes,2  while  another  friend 
of  the  author  got  an  artist  to  draw  a  map  of  the  imagi¬ 
nary  country.3  The  first  edition,  under  the  title  Utopia 
sive  de  optimo  reipublicae  statu.  .  .  .  cum  notis  Erasmi , 
was  printed  at  Antwerp  in  December,  15 16, 4  being 
intended  as  an  etrenne  ( strena )  or  New-Year  gift  for 
the  author’s  friends.5 

Erasmus  rarely  spoke  of  the  Utopia  with  praise, 
though,  in  forwarding  the  work  to  Froben,  he  did  say 
that  he  always  approved  all  of  More’s  writings.6  Another 
reference,  of  a  rather  ambiguous  nature,  was  to  the 
effect  that  in  reading  it  one  would  find  himself  trans¬ 
ported  to  another  world.7  There  may  have  been  in  it 
several  things  to  shock  him,  as  the  statement  that  Chris¬ 
tianity,  though  known,  was  not  the  prevalent  religion  of 
the  ideal  state.  Perhaps  the  humanist  regarded  this  as  one 
of  the  paradoxes  which,  like  Plato’s  community  of  wives, 
the  author  inserted  as  an  exercise  for  his  genius.  His  mild 
censure  of  More’s  style,  which,  in  its  mixture  of  irony 
and  earnest,  was  not  uninfluenced  by  the  Praise  of  Folly , 
is,  coming  from  so  fine  a  critic,  worthy  of  consideration. 

But  the  fact  is  that  the  Utopia  deals  with  a  subject 
in  which  Erasmus  had  very  little  interest.  Neither  for 
the  romantic  framework,  borrowed  from  Vespucci’s 
travels,  nor  for  the  social  problems  at  the  kernel,  did 
he  have  much  understanding  or  sympathy.  The  New 
World  meant  little  to  him;  the  world  of  poverty  and 


1  Allen,  ep.  461. 

2  Allen,  ep.  477;  Nichols,  ep.  464.  The  reading  of  the  older  editions, 
“nusquam  adorno,”  must  be  corrected  to  “Nusquamam  adorno,”  Nusquama 
being  the  Latin  name  for  Utopia. 

3  Allen,  ep.  487. 

4  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  Listes  sommaires,  iii,  p.  41. 

6  Erasmus  speaks  of  the  custom  of  Englishmen  of  giving  their  own  works 
as  strenae:  Allen,  i,  p.  8;  ep.  187.  To  the  references  given  by  him  in  the  notes, 
add  Roger  Ascham:  The  Scholemaster  (1571),  English  Works  of  R.  A.>  1761, 
p.  195:  “I  thought  to  prepare  some  little  treatise  for  a  New-Year  gift.” 

8  Allen,  ep.  635. 

7  Allen,  ep.  530. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


89 

toil  and  ignorance,  nothing  at  all.  The  Middle  Ages 
had  much  charity  for  the  disinherited  of  life,  but  no 
justice  for  them.  In  this  Erasmus  still  belonged  to 
the  age  from  which  some  of  his  contemporaries  were 
emerging.  The  German  cities,  exactly  at  this  time, 
were  beginning  to  take  measures  for  state  poor  relief, 
soon  to  be  discussed  in  a  scientific  treatise  by  the 
humanist’s  friend,  Louis  Vives.1  But,  save  when  they 
gave  him  alms,  the  rich  and  mighty  of  the  earth  re¬ 
garded  the  laborer  as  a  sort  of  animal,  “the  ox  without 
horns”  to  be  harnessed  to  the  plow  when  good,  and  to 
be  hunted  like  a  wild  beast  on  the  rare  occasions  when 
despair  prompted  him  to  rebel  against  his  lords.  The 
intellectuals  made  common  cause  with  the  masters. 
Diirer  planned  an  arch  of  triumph  to  commemorate 
the  suppression  of  the  Peasants’  Revolt;  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  joined  Albert,  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  and 
Matthew  Lang,  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  to  beat  down 
in  blood  and  blows  the  wretched  workers  who  rose  in 
blind,  almost  animal  fury,  against  intolerable  wrongs. 
The  spirit  of  the  humanists  was  but  too  faithfully 
expressed  in  the  Horatian  verse,  “I  hate  the  vulgar 
crowd  and  I  keep  them  off!” 

But  the  great  heart  of  More  went  out  to  the  people. 
He  thought  not  of  charity  and  state  employment  and 
all  the  other  ways  of  dealing  with  paupers.  He  dreamed 
of  a  society  where  there  should  be  no  poor,  where  gold 
and  jewels  should  be  esteemed  badges  of  shame,  not 
of  honor,  and  where  all  men  should  share  and  share 
alike.  The  sources  of  his  inspiration  were  neither  Plato’s 
Republic  nor  the  writings  of  Roman  and  Christian 
publicists,  but  his  own  experiences  as  lawyer,  judge, 
and  government  officer.  He  knew  too  well  that  what 
we  call  government  is  but  “a  conspiracy  of  the  rich 
seeking  their  own  commodity  under  the  name  of  the 

lDe  Subventione  Pauperum ,  by  L.  Vives,  English  translation  Concerning  the 
Relief  of  the  Poor ,  by  M.  M.  Sherwood,  1917.  On  the  whole  subject  see  my 
Age  of  the  Reformation,  1920,  pp.  557  fT. 


92 


ERASMUS 


In  this  the  great  Catholic  reformer  of  the  fifteenth 
century  tells  of  a  man  animated  with  excessive  zeal, 
who  persecuted  the  Turks  beyond  custom,  but  was 
finally  led  by  a  vision  and  by  meditation  to  see  various 
grounds  for  tolerating  their  religion.  God  had  made 
them  all,  he  reflected,  and  moreover,  the  vast  majority 
of  them  had  neither  the  opportunity  nor  the  power  to 
choose  their  own  religion,  but  were  forced  into  it  by 
their  governors  and  priests.  He  then  heard,  in  imagi¬ 
nation,  an  Arab,  a  Hindu,  a  Chaldean,  and  represent¬ 
atives  of  many  other  religions,  defending  themselves, 
and  pointing  out  some  truth  in  their  respective  faiths. 
This  view,  that  there  were  certain  licensed  religions, 
was  even  reflected  in  the  public  law  of  Europe,  which 
subjected  heretics,  but  not  Jews,  to  the  Inquisition. 

All  this  More  imbibed,  and  all  this  made  him  ready 
not  only  to  tolerate  but  to  see  good  in  a  prescriptive 
faith,  a  venerable  and  long-established  cult  with  vested 
interests  and  ancient  beliefs.  Very  different  were  the 
heretics,  who  were  innovators,  rebels,  seditious,  and, 
into  the  bargain,  often  brawling  and  unreasonable  and 
themselves  persecuting.  Moreover,  it  is  unquestionable 
that  More’s  liberalism  was  changed  by  advancing  age 
and  the  experience  of  one  vast,  subverting  revolu¬ 
tion.  Like  Luther  and  like  Burke,  More  then  became  a 
reactionary.  He  came  near  to  recanting  his  earlier 
opinions  when  he  hoped  that  neither  the  Praise  of 
Folly  nor  the  Utopia  would  be  translated  into  English, 
lest  great  harm  should  come  from  them.1  Yes,  the 
man  who  pointed  out  that  one  could  not  believe 
what  he  list,  punished  with  stripes  and  death  those 
who  would  have  seceded  from  the  Church.  He  de¬ 
clared  that  the  burning  of  heretics  was  lawful,  neces¬ 
sary,  and  well  done,2  and  that  of  all  crimes  he  considered 
heresy  the  worst.3  He  kept  up  a  war  of  pens  against 

1  Confutation  of  Tyndale ,  1532-33,  Workes ,  155 7,  p.  422. 

2  Dialogue ,  Workes ,  155 7,  pp.  no,  274  ff. 

*  Apology ,  Workes ,  p.  866. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


93 


the  heresiarchs,  writing  against  Luther  in  a  style  that 
Erasmus  thought  more  bitter  than  Luther’s  own.1 
He  reviled  Tewkesbury,  who  translated  Luther’s 
Christian  Liberty  and  died  for  his  faith,  as  “a  stinking 
martyr,”2  and  he  published  long  polemics  against 
Tyndale,  the  translator  of  the  Bible  into  English.  When 
Tyndale  defended  himself  by  pointing  out  that  many 
of  his  translations  were  suggested  by  Erasmus,  More 
replied  :3 

He  asketh  me  why  I  have  not  contended  with  Erasmus,  whom 
he  calleth  my  darling,  of  all  this  long  while,  for  translating  this 
word  ecclesia  into  this  word  congregatio.  And  then  he  cometh  forth 
with  his  fit  proper  taunt  that  I  favor  him  of  likelihood  for  making 
of  his  book  Moria  in  my  house.  ...  I  have  not  contended  with 
Erasmus,  my  darling,  because  I  find  no  such  malicious  intent  in 
Erasmus,  my  darling,  as  I  find  in  Tyndale. 

After  Erasmus  had  left  England  for  the  last  time 
he  occasionally  saw  More  on  the  Continent.  In  the 
year  1520  the  famous  Englishman  was  sent  upon  an 
embassy  to  the  Hanse  Towns.  From  July  19th  to 
August  1 2th  he  was  at  Bruges,  actively  treating  with 
the  ambassadors  of  the  Hansa,  who  noted  his  bland 
English  manners.4  Earlier  in  July  he  had  been  with 
Erasmus  at  the  “ Congress  of  Kings”  at  Calais,  and  had 
there  met  Germaine  de  Brie,  a  Frenchman  with  whom 
he  had  long  been  waging  a  war  of  epigrams  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  national  honor.5  Erasmus  tried  hard  to  reconcile 
the  two,  but  in  vain,  at  least  until  1527,  when  Brie  seems 
to  have  got  over  his  spleen.6 

Next  to  Thomas  More,  Erasmus’s  best  friend  in 
England  was  John  Colet,  to  whom,  as  to  a  man  of  singular 

1  LB.  x,  1652.  The  “tertius  quidam”  must  be  More;  see  English  Historical 
Review,  1912,  p.  673,  note  23. 

2  On  Tewkesbury,  “News  for  Bibliophiles,”  The  Nation  (New  York),  May 

29*  1913- 

3  Confutation  of  Tyndale ,  Workes ,  pp.  422,  425. 

AHanserecesse,  1477-1530,  Band  VII,  1905,  bearbeitet  von  D.  Schafer, 
no.  332. 

6  Allen,  epp.  461,  1087,  1093,  1096. 

6  Forstemann-Gunther,  67. 


94 


ERASMUS 


goodness,  he  was  introduced  by  Richard  Charnock  at 
Oxford  in  October,  1499.  Of  him,  too,  Erasmus  has 
left  a  charming  sketch,  a  biography  so  true,  so  beautiful, 
so  vivid,  that  a  good  part  of  it  must  needs  be  quoted.1 

Colet  was  born  at  London  of  honorable  and  wealthy  parents. 
His  father  was  twice  mayor.  His  mother,  yet  living,  a  woman  of 
great  goodness,  bore  her  husband  eleven  sons  and  as  many  daughters, 
of  whom  John  was  the  eldest  and  would  therefore  have  been  the 
sole  heir  according  to  British  law,  even  if  the  others  had  survived, 
but  only  one  of  them  was  alive  when  I  first  began  to  know  him.  In 
addition  to  such  advantages  of  fortune  he  had  a  distinguished  and 
elegant  person.  As  a  youth  at  home  he  diligently  learned  scholastic 
philosophy  and  obtained  the  reputation  of  a  proficient  in  the  seven 
liberal  arts.  In  all  of  these  wTas  he  happily  versed,  for  he  devoured 
the  books  of  Cicero  and  diligently  searched  the  wTorks  of  Plato  and 
Plotinus,  nor  did  he  leave  any  part  of  mathematics  untouched. 
After  this  eager  commerce  wTith  good  letters  he  went  to  France 
and  Italy.  There  he  gave  himself  to  the  study  of  sacred  authors, 
but  after  he  had  wandered  through  all  kinds  of  literature,  he  still 
loved  best  the  primitive  writers,  Dionysius,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Am¬ 
brose,  and  Jerome.  Among  the  ancients  he  was  more  hostile  to 
none  than  to  Augustine.2 

He  even  read  Scotus  and  Aquinas  when  he  had  the  opportunity. 
He  was  well  versed  in  the  Canon  and  Civil  Laws.  In  short  there  was 
no  book  on  the  history  and  institutions  of  the  past  which  he  did  not 
study.  The  English  nation  has  authors  who  have  accomplished 
that  for  her  tongue  which  Dante  and  Petrarch  have  for  Italian. 
By  studying  them  he  polished  his  speech  so  as  to  be  able  to  preach 
the  gospel.  Returning  from  Italy,  he  soon  left  his  parents’  house, 
preferring  to  live  at  Oxford.  There  he  publicly  and  without  reward 
lectured  on  Paul’s  Epistles.  Here  I  first  began  to  know  the  man — 
for  some  god  or  other  sent  me  thither.  He  was  about  thirty  years 
old,  two  or  three  months  younger  than  I.  In  theology  he  neither 
took  nor  sought  any  degree,  yet  there  was  no  doctor  of  theology  or 
law  nor  any  abbot  nor  other  dignitary  who  did  not  attend  his  lectures 
and  bring  with  them  their  books.  They  may  have  done  this  to 

1  Allen,  ep.  1211. 

2  “  Nulli  inter  veteres  iniquior  quam  Augustino”;  it  has  been  proposed  to 
translate  this,  “To  none  did  he  give  greater  attention  than  to  Augustine,” 
for  as  a  matter  of  fact  Colet  quotes  Augustine  more  than  anyone  else,  and 
with  approval.  J.  H.  Lupton:  Colet  on  the  Mosaic  Account  of  Creation ,  intro¬ 
duction,  xlv;  Colet' s  Lectures  on  Romans ,  p.  xxxix;  Life  of  Colet ,  1887,  p.  57. 
But  I  cannot  find  any  good  lexical  authority  for  so  translating  “iniquior.” 
The  text  is  surprising,  and  is  either  corrupt  or  Erasmus’s  pen  slipped  and  put 
in  one  too  many  negatives.  But  see  Allen’s  note,  iv,  p.  515,  line  273. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


95 


honor  Colet’s  authority  or  to  encourage  his  zeal,  but  at  any  rate 
old  men  were  not  ashamed  to  learn  from  a  youth  and  doctors  from 
one  not  a  doctor.  Later  when  the  degree  of  doctor  was  offered 
him  honoris  causa  he  took  it  rather  to  comply  with  custom  than 
because  he  desired  it.  .  .  . 

Let  me  now  make  a  few  remarks  about  his  nature,  his  paradoxical 
opinions,  and  the  trials  by  which  his  natural  piety  was  buffeted. 
Though  endowed  with  a  notably  lofty  mind  which  could  brook  no 
evil,  yet  he  confessed  to  me  that  he  was  inclined  to  lust,  luxury, 
and  sleep,  and  not  altogether  safe  from  love  of  money.  Against 
these  temptations  he  fought  with  philosophy,  sacred  studies,  watch¬ 
ing,  fasting,  and  prayer  with  such  success  that  during  his  whole 
life  he  remained  pure  from  stains  of  the  world.  As  far  as  I  could 
gather  from  his  conversation,  he  kept  the  flower  of  his  virginity  till 
his  death.  He  spent  his  wealth  in  pious  uses  and  struggled  against 
pride,  even  allowing  himself  to  be  admonished  by  a  boy.  He  drove 
away  concupiscence  and  drowsiness  by  perpetual  abstinence  from 
food,  by  sobriety,  by  unwearied  labors  and  holy  conversation. 
Whenever  chance  forced  him  either  to  joke  with  the  merry  or  to 
converse  with  women  or  to  participate  in  a  rich  banquet  you  might 
see  traces  of  his  natural  bent.  Therefore  he  abstained  from  the  society 
of  laymen  and  even  from  their  banquets,  to  which,  if  he  were  forced, 
he  would  take  some  one  like  me,  so  that  he  might  avoid  their  con¬ 
versation  by  talking  Latin.  He  would  then  eat  a  morsel  of  one 
kind  of  food  only,  with  one  or  two  drinks  of  beer,  abstaining  from 
wine,  which,  though  he  took  little,  he  loved  when  good.  Thus  he 
kept  guard  on  himself  and  abstained  from  all  things  by  which  he 
might  offend.  For  he  was  not  ignorant  that  the  eyes  of  all  were 
upon  him.  I  never  saw  a  richer  nature.  He  delighted  in  men  of 
similar  mind,  though  preferring  to  apply  himself  to  the  things  that 
prepare  for  a  future  life.  He  philosophized  in  every  circumstance, 
even  when  he  relaxed  his  mind  with  pleasant  stories.  The  purity 
and  simplicity  of  his  nature  found  delight  in  boys  and  girls,  for 
Christ  summons  his  disciples  to  imitate  them  and  compares  them 
to  angels. 

His  opinions  differed  from  those  commonly  held,  but  in  these 
points  he  yielded  with  wonderful  prudence  lest  he  should  offend 
some  one  or  damage  his  own  reputation,  for  he  was  not  ignorant 
how  unjust  are  the  judgments  of  men  and  how  prone  to  believe 
evil  and  how  much  easier  it  is  to  contaminate  a  man’s  fame  with 
slander  than  to  restore  it  with  praise.  Yet  among  learned  friends  he 
freely  professed  what  he  thought.  He  said  he  considered  the  Scotists 
to  whom  the  common  herd  attributed  a  peculiar  acumen,  stupid  fools  * 
and  anything  but  ingenious.  For  to  argue  about  the  opinions  and 
words  of  others,  gnawing  first  at  this  and  then  at  that,  and  cut¬ 
ting  up  everything  into  little  bits,  is  the  work  of  a  sterile  and  poor 


ERASMUS 


96 

mind.  He  was  more  harsh  to  Thomas  Aquinas  even  than  to  Scotus. 
Once  when  I  praised  Aquinas;  .  .  .  after  a  silence  he  looked  sharply 
at  me  to  see  whether  I  spoke  in  earnest  or  in  irony,  and  when  he  saw 
that  I  spoke  from  my  mind,  replied,  as  though  filled  with  a  certain 
spirit:  “Why  do  you  praise  to  me  a  man  who,  had  he  not  had  so 
much  arrogance,  would  never  have  defined  all  things  in  such  a  rash 
and  supercilious  way,  and  who,  had  he  not  had  a  worldly  spirit, 
would  never  have  contaminated  the  doctrine  of  Christ  with  his 
profane  philosophy?”  I  admired  his  earnestness  and  began  to 
expound  to  him  the  work  of  Aquinas.  What  need  of  words?  He 
entirely  disagreed  with  my  whole  estimate. 

Though  no  one  had  more  Christian  piety,  yet  he  cared  little  for 
monastic  vows,  gave  little  or  nothing  to  monks  and  left  them  nothing 
at  his  death.  Not  that  he  disliked  the  profession,  but  that  the  men 
did  not  live  up  to  it.  He  himself  vowed  to  withdraw7  from  the  world 
if  he  could  ever  find  a  company  sincerely  dedicated  to  an  evangelical 
life.  He  delegated  this  search  to  me  w7hen  I  wTent  to  Italy,  saying 
that  when  he  was  in  Italy  he  had  found  among  the  Italians  some 
monks  really  prudent  and  pious.1  .  .  .  He  was  wont  to  say  that  he 
never  found  less  vice  than  among  married  people,  .  .  .  and  though 
he  lived  so  chastely  yet  was  he  less  hard  on  priests  who  offended 
in  this  point  than  on  the  proud,  hateful,  evil-speaking,  slanderous, 
unlearned,  vain,  avaricious,  and  ambitious.  .  .  .  He  said  that  the 
numerous  colleges2  in  England  thwarted  good  studies  and  were 
nothing  but  temptations  to  idleness. 

The  influence  on  Erasmus  of  this  stimulating  per¬ 
sonality  was  as  immediate  as  it  was  profound.  The 
sketch  just  quoted,  written  many  years  afterward, 
rightly  mentions  some  of  the  points  which  particularly 
impressed  him;  Colet’s  love  of  primitive  texts,  and 
dislike  for  the  later  dogmaticians,  Scotus,  Aquinas,  and 
even  Augustine;  his  criticism  of  the  monastic  life.  In 
a  letter  written  shortly  after  their  meeting  Erasmus 
emphasizes  some  of  these  same  points,  heaping  ridicule 
on  the  “new  theologians”  who  have  reduced  divinity 
to  absurdity,  by  asking  and  discussing  questions  such 
as,  “Could  God  have  become  incarnate  in  a  devil  or  in 

1  Colet  was  probably  thinking  of  the  “Platonic  Academy”  of  Florence,  the 
leading  light  of  which,  in  his  day,  was  Pico  de  la  Mirandola.  On  the  saintly 
and  beautiful  lives  of  these  men,  cf.  P.  Monnier:  Le  Quattrocento,  1908,  vol. 
ii,  pp.  75  ff.  He  may  possibly  have  also  met  Savonarola. 

2  In  the  original  sense  of  foundations  for  poor  students. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


97 


an  ass?”  At  the  same  time  he  upholds  the  authentic 
theology  of  the  Bible  and  the  fathers.  From  this  time 
on  we  see  him  turning  his  attention  more  and  more  to 
Jerome,  regarded  as  the  champion  of  humanistic  the¬ 
ology,  to  the  Bible,  and  to  the  study  of  Greek.1 

Erasmus,  on  his  side,  made  a  favorable  impression 
on  Colet,  who  soon  suggested  that  his  friend  should 
place  his  talents  at  the  disposition  of  the  university  by 
lecturing  either  on  divinity  or  on  poetry  and  rhetoric. 
Erasmus  replied  that  the  former  he  felt  above  his  power 
and  the  latter  below  his  purpose.2 

A  sample  of  the  friends’  conversations  is  given  in 
some  letters3  on  a  serious  theological  topic,  namely 
Christ’s  agony  in  the  garden.  Erasmus  maintained  the 
conventional  view  that  it  was  due  to  Jesus’  apprehension, 
as  a  man,  of  the  suffering  he  wTas  about  to  go  through; 
Colet,  following  a  hint  of  Jerome,  that  it  was  due  to  his 
sorrow  at  the  crime  about  to  be  committed  by  the  Jews. 
The  admirable  spirit  of  the  discussion  may  be  seen  in 
the  words  of  Erasmus,  “that  he  would  rather  be  con¬ 
quered  than  conquering — that  is,  taught  than  teaching.” 

When  Erasmus  returned  to  England  in  1505  he  re¬ 
newed  his  personal  intercourse  with  Colet,  to  whom 
he  wrote,  just  before  his  arrival  expressing  his  ardent 
desire  to  devote  his  life  to  theology.4  He  found  his 
friend  in  a  new  office,  of  which  the  account  may  best 
be  given  in  Erasmus’s  own  words:5 

From  his  sacred  labors  at  Oxford  Colet  was  called  to  London 
by  the  favor  of  King  Henry  VII  to  be  dean  of  St.  Paul’s,6  that  he 
might  preside  over  the  cathedral  chapter  of  him  whose  writings 
he  so  much  loved.  This  is  a  dignity  of  the  first  rank  in  England, 
even  though  others  have  larger  emoluments.  This  excellent  man, 
as  though  summoned  to  a  labor  rather  than  an  honor,  restored 

1  October,  1499.  Allen,  i,  246  ff.  Cf.  A.  Humbert:  Les  origines  de  la 
iheologie  moderne.  1911,  184  ff. 

2  Allen,  ep.  108;  Nichols,  ep.  108. 

3  Allen,  epp.  109-m. 

4  Allen,  ep.  181;  Nichols,  ep.  180;  December,  1504. 

6  Allen,  ep.  1211. 

8  Some  time  between  June  20,  1505,  and  June  20,  1506.  Allen,  iv,  p.  xxii. 


ERASMUS 


98 

the  relaxed  discipline  of  the  chapter  and  instituted  the  new  custom 
of  preaching  every  holy  day  in  his  church,  besides  delivering  other 
sermons  in  the  palace  and  elsewhere.  In  his  homilies  he  did  not 
take  the  text  at  random  from  the  lesson  of  the  day,  but  chose  one 
line  of  argument  to  which  he  adhered  for  several  consecutive  dis¬ 
courses — for  example,  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  the  creed,  the  Lord’s 
prayer.  He  drew  large  audiences,  among  whom  were  many  of  the 
chief  men  of  the  city  and  court.  He  brought  back  to  frugality  the 
table  of  the  dean,  which  under  pretext  of  hospitality  had  ministered 
to  luxury.  Colet,  according  to  his  long-established  custom,  went 
without  the  evening  meal.  At  his  late  lunch  he  had  a  few  guests; 
the  viands,  though  frugal,  were  clean  and  quickly  served,  and  the 
conversation  was  such  as  to  delight  only  good  and  learned  men. 
After  grace  a  boy  would  read  aloud  a  chapter  from  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  or  from  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon.  From  these  he  would 
choose  a  passage,  the  meaning  of  which  he  would  inquire  both  from 
the  learned  and  from  intelligent  laymen.  His  words,  no  matter 
how  pious  and  serious,  were  never  tedious  or  haughty.  At  the  end 
of  the  meal,  when  all  had  eaten  enough  to  satisfy  nature,  though 
not  appetite,  he  introduced  another  subject,  so  that  his  guests 
departed  refreshed  in  mind  and  in  body,  better  than  when  they 
came  and  not  overloaded  with  food.  If  there  was  no  one  at  hand 
able  to  converse  (for  he  delighted  not  in  everyone)  the  boy  would 
read  a  passage  of  Scripture. 

He  sometimes  took  me  for  a  comrade  on  an  outing  which  he 
enjoyed  more  than  anything  else;  a  book  was  always  our  com¬ 
panion,  and  our  words  were  only  of  Christ.  He  was  so  impatient 
of  all  that  was  low  that  he  could  not  bear  even  a  barbarism  or  solecism 
in  speech.  He  strove  for  neatness  in  his  household  furniture,  his 
table,  his  clothes,  and  his  books,  but  not  for  magnificence.  He 
wore  only  dark  clothes,  though  commonly  the  priests  and  theologians 
there  wore  purple.  The  outer  garment  was  of  simple  wool;  when 
the  cold  required  it  he  wore  an  inner  garment  of  skin. 

The  income  of  his  office  he  gave  to  his  steward  for  household 
expenses;  he  himself  applied  his  ample  patrimony  to  pious  uses. 
For  when  at  his  father’s  death  he  inherited  a  large  fortune,  fearing 
lest  it  might  breed  some  evil  in  him  if  he  kept  it,  he  constructed  a 
new  school  in  the  churchyard  of  St.  Paul’s,  and  dedicated  it  to  the 
boy  Jesus.  He  built  a  magnificent  school-house  in  which  two  masters 
might  live  and  he  gave  them  a  large  salary  that  they  might  teach 
the  boys  gratuitously,  but  made  the  stipulation  that  only  so  many 
pupils  should  be  received.  He  divided  them  into  four  classes.  Into 
the  first,  that  of  catechumens,  none  were  received  who  could  not 
read  and  write.  The  second  class  was  taught  by  the  under  master, 
the  third  by  the  upper  master.  Each  class  was  divided  from  the 
others  by  a  curtain  which  could  be  drawn  and  withdrawn  at  pleasure. 


ENGLISH  FRIENDS 


99 


Above  the  chair  of  the  preceptor  sat  the  boy  Jesus  as  though  teaching. 
Him  the  whole  class  saluted  on  entering  and  at  leaving.  Above 
was  the  face  of  the  Father  saying,  “Hear  ye  him,”  for  Colet  wrote 
these  words  at  my  suggestion.1  In  the  rear  was  the  chapel.  There 
was  no  corner  or  nook  in  the  whole  school,  nor  separate  dining  and 
sleeping  rooms.  Each  boy  had  his  place.  Each  class  had  sixteen 
members,  and  the  best  scholars  in  each  class  were  given  higher 
seats.  All  applicants  were  not  admitted,  but  a  choice  made  according 
to  nature  and  intelligence.  That  wise  man  saw  that  the  main  hope 
of  the  state  was  in  good  primary  education.  Much  as  the  enterprise 
cost,  he  allowed  no  one  to  help  him.  When  some  one  left  the  school 
one  hundred  pounds  by  will,  Colet,  knowing  that  the  laity  would 
thereby  arrogate  some  rights  or  other,  got  permission  from  his 
bishop  to  apply  the  bequest  to  buying  sacred  garments  for  cathedral 
use.  For  trustees  of  the  school  he  selected  neither  priests,  nor  a 
bishop  and  chapter,  but  some  married  citizens  of  good  reputation. 
To  some  one  who  asked  him  why  he  did  this  he  replied  that,  though 
nothing  was  certain  in  human  affairs,  less  corruption  was  found  in 
such  men  than  in  others. 

No  one  disapproved  the  school,  but  some  wondered  why  he  built 
a  magnificent  house  in  the  gardens  of  the  Carthusian  monks  near 
the  palace  at  Richmond.  He  said  that  he  prepared  this  seat  for  his 
old  age  when  he  should  be  unequal  to  work  or  broken  down  with 
illness  and  forced  to  withdraw  from  the  companionship  of  men. 
There  he  intended  to  study  philosophy  with  two  or  three  good  friends, 
among  whom  he  was  wont  to  number  me,  but  death  prevented  his 
plan. 

When  Colet  died  in  September,  1519,  Erasmus  wrote 
to  Fisher:2 

The  death  of  Colet  has  been  as  bitter  to  me  as  the  death  of  any 
man  within  thirty  years.  I  know  that  it  is  well  with  him,  that 
he  is  free  from  the  calamities  of  this  wicked  world  and  enjoying 
Christ,  whom  he  loved  so  well  while  alive.  Yet  on  behalf  of  the 
public  I  must  needs  deplore  so  rare  an  example  of  Christian  piety, 
and  so  singular  a  preacher  of  Christ’s  doctrine,  and  on  my  own 
behalf  the  loss  of  so  constant  a  friend  and  so  incomparable  a  patron. 
All  that  is  left  to  me  is  to  discharge  the  offices  due  to  the  beloved 
dead;  if  my  writings  have  power  I  shall  not  suffer  his  memory 
to  die  away  among  posterity. 

1  For  this  school  Erasmus  wrote  a  Sermon  on  the  Boy  Jesus,  which  was 
soon  translated  into  English  and  has  been  edited  by  J.  H.  Lupton  in  1901, 
as  Erasmi  Concio  de  puero  Jesu.  A  sermon  on  the  child  Jesus  ...  in  an  old 
English  version  of  unknown  Authorship. 

2  October  17,  1519.  Allen,  ep.  1030. 


102 


ERASMUS 


1506,  when  John  Baptist  Boerio,  the  Italian  physician 
of  Henry  VII,  offered  him  the  position  of  tutor  to  his 
sons,  John  and  Bernard,  whom  he  was  sending  to  Italy 
to  complete  their  education.1  The  boys  are  variously 
described  as  extremely  dull,2  and  as  modest,  docile, 
and  industrious.3  They  had  with  them  another  tutor 
named  Clifton,  an  amiable  young  man. 

From  Paris  the  party  set  out  southward,  the  road 
lying  through  Lyons.  The  favorable  impression  made 
by  the  excellent  inns  of  France  is  recorded  in  the 
Colloquies :4 

One  could  not  be  better  treated  at  his  own  house  than  at  these 
inns.  ...  At  table  some  woman  is  always  present  to  enliven  the 
meal  with  her  charming  humor  and  courtesy.  The  first  one  to  meet 
you  is  the  landlady,  who  salutes  you,  bids  you  be  merry  and  excuse 
whatever  you  may  find  amiss.  Then  follows  the  daughter,  an 
elegant  person,  so  gay  in  speech  and  manners  that  she  might  cheer 
up  Cato  himself.  They  converse  not  as  with  strange  guests,  but 
as  wfith  familiar  friends.  .  .  .  The  provisions,  too,  are  splendid; 
I  can’t  understand  how  they  do  it  at  so  small  a  price.  .  .  .  They 
wash  your  soiled  linen  of  their  own  accord,  and  finally  embrace  you 
at  parting  with  as  much  affection  as  if  you  were  their  own  brothers. 

From  Lyons  the  party  proceeded  through  Savoy  and 
the  Mont  Cenis  to  Turin.  As  they  were  crossing  the 
pass  a  violent  quarrel  arose  between  the  pursuivant  of 
the  king  of  England  and  Clifton,5  which  was  later  made 
up  over  a  bottle  of  wine.  Seeing  this  conduct,  Erasmus 
conceived  a  strong  dislike  for  them  both,  and  avoided 
their  company,  whiling  away  his  time  by  composing  a 
poem  on  old  age.6 

Turin,  the  capital  of  the  Dukedom  of  Savoy,  was  the 
seat  of  a  small  and  not  very  flourishing  university.7 


1  Allen,  i,  p.  59;  Nichols,  i,  p.  28.  B.  Rhenanus  to  Charles  V. 

2  Nolhac:  Correspondants  d’ Aide  Manuce,  1888,  p.  78. 

3  Allen,  ep.  195;  Nichols,  ep.  195. 

4  LB.  i,  p.  715. 

6  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations.  Allen,  i,  p.  4;  Nichols,  i,  p.  416. 

6  Carmen  de  senectutis  incommodis.  LB.  iv,  750  ff. 

7  On  Turin,  Rashdall:  Universities ,  ii,  pp.  56-58.  There  was  a  Renaissance 
church  at  Turin,  completed  1498,  but  Erasmus  was  not  interested. 


ITALY 


103 


There  used  to  be  an  old  joke  in  Germany  that  the  train 
stopped  half  an  hour  at  Erlangen  for  the  passengers  to 
take  degrees,  and  evidently  the  standards  of  Turin  were 
not  much  more  exacting.  Erasmus  and  possibly  Clifton 
also  took  their  doctorates  while  passing  through.  Erasmus 
was  by  no  means  proud  of  his  alma  mater;  he  worded 
his  letters  to  give  the  impression,  without  absolutely 
saying  so,  that  he  had  been  graduated  at  the  more 
famous  University  of  Bologna.  His  diploma,1  dated 
September  4,  1506,  states  that  Baldesar  de  Berneci, 
Archbishop  of  Laodicea,  vicegerent  and  vicar  general  of 
John  Lewis  della  Rovere,  Bishop  of  Turin,2  and  specially 
deputed  vice  chancellor  of  the  university,  having  found 
the  candidate  sufficient,  grants  him  the  degrees  of 
master  and  doctor  in  theology. 

Descending  the  Po  to  Pavia,  the  party  had  the  op¬ 
portunity  of  seeing  some  of  the  finest  specimens  of 
Renaissance  architecture — for  example,  the  cathedral 
and  one  of  the  university  buildings  begun  by  Ludovico 
il  Moro  in  1490.  Five  miles  north  of  the  city  stands 
the  famous  Certosa.  The  nave  of  the  cathedral,  begun 
in  1396,  was  completed  in  Gothic  style  in  1465:  but 
the  rest  of  the  church  is  of  more  modern  fashion.  The 
cloisters  and  transepts  had  already  been  built  in  1506, 
and  the  fa$ade  was  erected  the  next  year.  The  work  of  a 
number  of  different  artists,  it  is  often  considered  the 
most  elaborate  and  richly  adorned  example  of  its  style 
in  existence.3  Erasmus  saw  the  wonderful  monument, 
but  was  impressed  by  the  enormous  expense,  rather  than 
by  the  beauty  of  the  thing,  and  by  the  pride,  rather  than 
the  piety,  which  made  the  rich  desire  sepulture  in  it.4 


1  Printed  from  Erasmus’s  own  copy  in  Epistolae  familiares  D.  Erasmi  Rot. 
ad  Bonifacium  Amerbachium,  1779,  no.  1,  and  in  Vischer:  Erasmiana,  1876, 
P-  7- 

2  Doubtless  a  kinsman  of  the  then  reigning  Pope  Julius  II,  from  whom 
Erasmus  had  just  procured  a  dispensation.  Perhaps  this  explains  Erasmus’s 
course  in  stopping  at  Turin,  and  his  reception  there. 

3  Encyclopedia  Britannica ,  s.  v.  “  Pavia.” 

4  Colloquia,  LB.  i,  685AB. 


104 


ERASMUS 


Proceeding  to  Bologna,  the  travelers  were  soon  obliged 
to  leave  by  the  threat  of  a  French  army  demonstrating 
against  the  town,  and  to  take  refuge  at  Florence.1 
Italy  was  now  the  bone  of  contention  between  greater 
powers,  the  Empire,  France,  and  Spain.  While  Spain 
was  firmly  established  in  the  south,  Louis  XII  of  France 
was  marching  up  and  down,  seeking  what  he  could 
devour  in  the  north.  Only  the  great  states,  the  Papacy 
and  Venice,  withstood  his  arms.  Florence,  under  the 
guidance  of  Machiavelli,  enjoyed  a  somewhat  precarious 
neutrality,  a  buffer  state  between  the  powers  of  the 
Golden  Lilies,  the  Keys,  and  the  Lions  and  Castles. 

At  Florence  Erasmus  was  at  the  very  heart  of  the 
Renaissance.  Hardly  a  great  name  either  in  art  or  in 
literature  that  was  not  in  some  way  connected  with 
her.  Her  cathedral  and  her  marvelous  churches  stood 
in  1507  much  as  they  do  now;  they  and  her  private 
houses  were  enriched  then,  as  now,  with  paintings  and 
statues  of  transcendent  loveliness.  But  Erasmus  never 
mentioned  the  Duomo  or  the  Badia,  Santo  Spirito  or 
Santa  Maria  Novella,  the  Campanile  or  the  Baptistry, 
or  the  various  palaces  and  public  squares.  He  spoke 
of  Dante  and  Petrarch  as  having  done  great  things  for 
the  vernacular,  and  he  knew  that  some  men  spent  their 
lives  expounding  them.2  He  said  that  he  had  read 
Petrarch,  Poggio,  Filelfo,  and  Aretino;  presumably  he 
meant  their  Latin,  not  their  Italian  works.3  He  thought 
Petrarch’s  style  barbarous.4  He  mentioned  Savonarola 
several  times,  though  cursorily,  as  one  who  had  the 
gift  of  prophecy.5  The  works  of  the  great  artists  he 
never  described  specifically,  but  only  in  the  most  general 
way,  showing  that  he  was  familiar  with  their  favorite 
subjects.  The  libraries  of  the  humanists  at  Rome,  he 
observed,  were  full  of  pagan  rather  than  of  Christian 

1  Allen,  epp.  200-202;  Nichols,  epp.  198-200. 

2  LB.  v,  954,  and  letter  to  Jonas,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1211. 

3  Lond.  xxvii,  38;  LB.  ep.  1284.  To  Damian  a  Goes,  August  18,  1535. 

4  Ciceronianus,  LB.  i,  1008E. 

6  LB.  v,  954,  985. 


ITALY 


105 


art;  in  such  places  one  saw  Jupiter  slipping  through  the 
skylight  into  the  lap  of  Danae  rather  than  Gabriel  an¬ 
nouncing  the  conception  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  Ganymede 
stolen  by  the  eagle  rather  than  Christ  ascending  to 
heaven,  Bacchanalia  and  festivals  of  Terminus  rather 
than  the  raising  of  Lazarus  or  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
by  John.1 

From  Florence  the  party  was  soon  enabled  to  return 
to  Bologna,  attractive  as  the  seat  of  one  of  the  oldest 
and  most  famous  universities  in  Europe.  Though  the 
students  were  numerous,  the  academy  had  no  fixed 
buildings  of  its  own,  the  professors  lecturing  at  their 
own  houses.  Bologna  had  just  been  at  war  with  its 
overlord,  the  pope,  and  the  martial  pontiff,  Julius  II, 
had  just  conquered  it.  Erasmus  was  in  time  to  witness 
his  triumphal  entry.2  It  occurred  on  November  11, 
1506,  the  lovely  Italian  weather  still  permitting  the 
roses  to  bloom.  The  pageant  was  a  perfect  specimen 
of  the  festive  art  of  the  Renaissance.  Thirteen  triumphal 
arches  had  been  erected,  bearing  the  inscription:  “To 
Julius  II,  our  liberator  and  most  beneficent  father.” 
First  came  the  cavalry,  the  men  at  arms,  and  the 
regimental  bands.  Then  followed  the  papal  officers, 
the  cardinals  walking  immediately  in  front  of  Julius, 
who  was  carried  in  a  chair  of  state,  resplendently  clad 
in  a  purple  cope  shot  with  gold  thread  and  fastened 
with  gems.  He  was  followed  by  the  patriarchs,  arch¬ 
bishops,  bishops,  generals  of  the  orders,  and  papal 
guard.  The  crowd  of  spectators  was  immense.3 


1  Ciceronianus,  transl.  by  Scott,  p.  75.  From  such  allusions  it  is  impossible 
to  say  what  pictures  Erasmus  had  in  mind.  The  famous  “Danaes”  of  Titian 
and  Correggio  came  later;  the  “Annunciation”  had  been  treated  by  Giotto, 
Moretto,  Fra  Angelico,  Solario  (1508),  and  many  others;  the  “Ganymede" 
of  Correggio  came  later;  the  “Ascension”  had  been  treated  by  Mantegna  and 
others;  Titian’s  “Bacchanale”  was  painted  in  1514,  though  there  was  one  by 
Piero  di  Cosimo  painted  c.  1485;  there  were  many  baptisms  of  Jesus. 

2  Allen,  ep.  203;  Nichols,  ep.  201. 

3  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes  (English  transl.  by  Antrobus,  1898)  vi,  281. 
On  November  29th  the  Pope  had  an  interview  with  Michelangelo  in  Bologna. 
Ibid.,  510. 


io  6 


ERASMUS 


Instead  of  being  impressed  by  the  splendor  of  the 
spectacle,  Erasmus  was  scandalized  by  seeing  the  Vicar 
of  Christ  celebrating  bloody  triumphs  and  surveyed  the 
whole  thing  with  a  silent  groan.1  His  deep  hatred  and 
contempt  for  the  man  who  thus  demoralized  the  Church 
found  expression,  a  few  years  later,  in  a  satiric  dialogue 
in  which  Julius  is  represented  as  seeking  in  vain  admis¬ 
sion  to  heaven  on  the  ground  that  his  military  exploits 
had  aggrandized  the  Roman  Church.2  It  is  possible 
that  Erasmus  may  also  have  witnessed  the  pope’s 
triumphal  entry  into  Rome,  on  Palm  Sunday,  March  28, 
1 507,  a  spectacle  which  eclipsed  even  the  gorgeous 
procession  at  Bologna.3 

Most  of  the  year,  however,  he  spent  at  Bologna 
in  study.  Though  disappointed  in  not  finding  there 
anyone  acquainted  with  Greek,  he  made  several  good 
friends  among  the  scholars,  the  best  of  whom  was  the 
accomplished  Paul  Bombasius,  at  this  time  a  professor, 
later  secretary  to  Cardinal  Pucci  and  then  to  Clement 
VII.4 

Erasmus  had  hitherto  worn  the  dress  of  an  Augustinian 
canon,  consisting  of  a  long  black  gown,  a  capuce,  or 
black  mantle,  and  a  white  hood  carried  over  the  arm 
like  a  scarf.5  It  happened  that  at  Bologna  at  this  time 
the  dress  of  the  physicians  who  attended  victims  of  the 
plague  was  very  similar.  On  one  occasion  Erasmus  was 
actually  taken  for  a  physician,  and  would  have  been 
mobbed  by  a  crowd  of  citizens  who  feared  he  was 
bringing  in  contagion,  had  not  a  kind  lady  explained 
to  them  that  he  was  an  ecclesiastic.  He  therefore 
hastened  to  get  permission  from  the  pope  to  wear  the 


1  Apologia  adv.  Stunicam,  LB.  ix,  360. 

2  On  this  dialogue,  see  next  chapter,  pp.  127  f. 

3  L.  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes .  (English  translation  by  Antrobus),  vi, 
281,  287. 

4  Allen,  epp.  210,  217,  223,  251,  257;  Nichols,  i,  pp.  426-427. 

6  These  clothes  might  be  of  various  colors,  black,  white,  violet  or  red.  Cf. 
Kirchenlexicon,  1883,  ii,  p.  1829.  On  the  incident,  Allen,  i,  pp.  59,  60,  571, 
ii,  pp.  304  f;  Nichols,  i,  p.  29,  ii,  pp.  148,  358-360. 


ITALY 


107 

simple  dress  of  a  priest,  which  he  kept  during  his  sub¬ 
sequent  life. 

The  year  at  Bologna  was,  as  usual,  filled  with  literary 
work.  Wishing  to  have  some  of  his  lucubrations  pub¬ 
lished,  Erasmus  was  naturally  attracted  by  the  fame 
of  the  Venetian  printer,  Aldo  Manuzio.  To  be  a  pub¬ 
lisher  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  to  be  a  member  of 
a  learned  profession  engaged  in  the  diffusion  of  science 
and  culture.  Among  the  brilliant  men  who  devoted 
themselves  to  printing  in  its  infancy  none  has  attained 
a  juster  renown  than  Aldo.  Born  just  as  Gutenberg 
was  making  his  momentous  discovery  (1450),  Manuzio 
gave  himself  a  thorough  training  in  Greek  and  Latin, 
spending  his  earlier  years  in  teaching.  In  1490  he  moved 
to  Venice,  and  before  his  death,  in  1515,  he  had  printed 
twenty-eight  editiones  principes  of  Greek  and  Latin 
classics,  besides  many  reprints  and  other  publications. 
Deficient  as  some  of  these  editions  may  seem  in  the 
light  of  modern  scholarship,  only  a  man  of  rare  abilities 
and  learning  could  have  produced  them  at  all.  In 
beauty  and  durability  of  paper,  type,  and  binding,  his 
work  has  never  been  surpassed  by  all  the  appliances  of 
twentieth-century  mechanics.  There  was,  therefore, 
no  hyperbolical  compliment  in  Erasmus’s  letter  to  Aldo, 
requesting  that  his  works  might  be  made  sure  of  im¬ 
mortality  by  being  published  by  him.  A  favorable 
answer  brought  the  humanist  to  Venice  in  November, 
1507,  where  he  spent  just  about  a  year,1  during  which 
time  he  was  the  guest  of  Aldo  for  about  eight  months.2 
Here  he  published  a  new  edition  of  Adages ,  in  handsome 
folio. 

Aldo  had  gathered  around  him  a  number  of  learned 
collaborators,  among  them  the  Greeks  Marcus  Musurus 
and  John  Lascaris,  who  formed  a  society,  devoted  to 
letters  and  philosophy,  known  as  the  Neacademia. 

1  Allen,  epp.  207,  208.  Cf.  Cambridge  Modern  History ,  i,  564;  P.  de  Nolhac: 
Les  Correspondants  d’  Aide  Manuce ,  1888.  P.  de  Nolhac:  Erasme  e n  Italie,  1888. 

2  LB.  ix,  1137. 


io8 


ERASMUS 


This  society  was  extremely  congenial  to  Erasmus,  who, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  was  admitted  to  membership. 
In  one  of  his  Adages  he  relates  the  kindness  of  these 
friends  in  lending  him  manuscripts  and  assisting  him 
with  his  Greek,  and  especially  commends  the  noble  care 
of  Aldo  to  have  his  edition  as  perfect  as  possible.1  One 
of  the  scholars  whom  he  especially  mentioned  in  this 
connection  was  Jerome  Aleander,  a  young  man  of 
twenty-seven,  whose  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Greek 
had  already  won  him  distinction  and  who  was  to  win  a 
still  wider  renown  by  the  part  he  subsequently  played 
as  papal  nuncio  at  the  Diet  of  Worms.  At  that  later 
time  Erasmus  conceived  a  deep  hatred  and  suspicion 
of  him,  but  at  Venice  their  relations  were  so  warm  that 
they  shared  the  same  room  for  six  months,  and  when 
the  Italian  departed  for  Paris,  in  1508,  he  was  given 
valuable  introductions  by  his  friend.2 

If  Erasmus  was  satisfied  with  the  conditions  under 
which  he  worked,  he  was  not  at  all  contented  with  the 
Venetian  manner  of  life.  In  one  of  his  Colloquies  he 
has  given  us  a  comically  doleful  picture  of  the  hardships 
he  suffered  in  Aldo’s  house.  One  grievance  was  that 
roots  were  burned  as  fuel,  making  nothing  but  smoke; 
another  was  that  the  women  were  kept  apart  from  the 
men.  In  summer  the  house  was  overrun  with  fleas  and 
bugs.  The  wine  was  made  by  adding  water  to  dregs 
of  ten  years’  standing.  The  bread,  made  of  spoiled 
flour  twice  a  month,  became  as  hard  as  rocks.  There 
was  no  breakfast;  and  dinner,  which  north  of  the  Alps 
was  usually  served  at  ten  in  the  morning,  was  kept 
waiting  till  one.  After  every  excuse  for  delay  had  been 
exhausted  a  dish  of  tallowlike  mush  would  be  brought 
in.  Though  there  were  nine  at  table,  the  next  course 
would  consist  of  seven  leaves  of  lettuce  dressed  in  vinegar 

1  In  the  Adage,  Festina  lente ,  which  first  appeared  in  the  edition  of  1526, 
LB.  ii,  405;  Nichols,  i,  437  ff,  quoted  supra,  p.  42. 

2  Allen,  ep.  256.  P.  KalkofF:  Depeschen  des  Nuntius  Aleander  zu  Worms, 
1897,  p.  74.  Letter  of  Aleander,  February  8,  1521.  Paquier:  L Humanisme 
et  la  Reforme,  1900,  p.  27. 


ITALY 


109 


without  oil.  The  desert  was  a  little  cheese  with  three 
pennyworth  of  grapes.  But  worse  was  yet  to  come! 
In  the  autumn  the  fare  consisted  of  small  portions  of 
shellfish  drawn  from  the  sewers.  When  the  guest  com¬ 
plained  of  these  he  was  given  soup  made  of  the  rinds 
of  cheese,  followed  by  a  bit  of  meat,  taken,  two  weeks 
previously,  from  the  viscera  of  an  ancient  cow.  The 
batter  with  which  it  was  covered  was  just  enough  to 
deceive  the  eye,  but  not  the  nose.  And  when  the  guest 
still  complained  his  host  hired  a  doctor  to  advise  him 
to  eat  less!  And  yet  this  miser,  to  whom  Erasmus 
gave  a  fictitious,  but  perfectly  transparent  name,  made 
a  thousand  ducats  a  year!1 

Making  due  allowance  for  humor  and  rhetoric,  it  is 
evident  that  the  full-blooded  Dutchman  was  very  ill 
satisfied  with  the  frugal  fare  of  the  Italians.  They  on 
their  side  marveled  at  his  capacity  for  food  and  drink. 
Many  years  later  an  enemy,  who  perhaps  got  his 
information  from  Aleander,  represented  Erasmus  as 
both  the  servant  and  parasite  of  Aldo,  and  one  who 
“though  doing  only  the  work  of  half  a  man,  was  thrice 
a  Geryon  for  drinking,  under  the  pretext  that  he  needed 
the  stimulant/’2  Exaggerated  as  this  charge  must  be, 
it  is  a  fact  that  Erasmus  first  felt  at  Venice  the  symptoms 
of  the  then  common  disease  known  as  the  stone,  which 
he  attributed  to  the  poor  food,  but  which  is  in  reality 
aggravated,  if  not  caused,  by  the  too  exclusive  use  of 
alcoholic  beverages.3 

At  Venice,  as  at  Florence,  Erasmus  was  a  little  blind 
to  the  wonderful  art  of  his  contemporaries,  Bellini, 
Carpaccio,  Giorgione,  Palma  Vecchio,  and  Titian,  none 
of  whom  he  seems  to  have  met,  and  whose  works  he 
never  mentions. 

In  October  or  November,  1508,  Erasmus  left  Venice 

1  The  Colloquy  “Sordid  Wealth,”  LB.  i,  862  IF. 

2  J.  C.  Scaliger:  Oratio  pro  Cicerone  contra  Erasmum,  1531.  Quoted  by 
Nolhac:  Erasme  en  Italie ,  p.  37.  Cf.  Apologia  ad  XXIV  libros  Alberti  Pii. 
LB.  ix,  1136  f;  Nichols,  i,  pp.  446-448. 

3  Erasmus  to  Asola,  March  18,  1523.  Nolhac,  p.  107,  no.  5. 


no 


ERASMUS 


for  Padua,  the  university  town,  or,  as  Renan  calls  it, 
“the  Latin  quarter”  of  the  great  maritime  republic. 
Here  he  became  tutor  to  Alexander  Stuart,  a  natural 
son  of  James  IV  of  Scotland,  who  was  already  appointed 
to  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  St.  Andrews.1  The  relations 
of  the  two  seem  to  have  been  pleasant  and  intimate. 
Erasmus  highly  praises  the  personal  appearance  and 
accomplishments  of  his  pupil2  and  relates  how  the  lad 
amused  himself  by  imitating  his  teacher’s  handwriting.3 
Besides  Latin  and  Greek  with  the  humanist,  he  was 
reading  canon  law  with  another  preceptor,  and  devoting 
his  leisure  to  history.  In  1508  Alexander  was  joined 
by  his  younger  brother,  also  a  natural  son  of  the  king 
of  Scotland,  James  Stuart,  Earl  of  Moray,  for  whom, 
many  years  after,  Erasmus  continued  to  make  affec¬ 
tionate  inquiries.4 

In  December,  1508,  the  party  went  to  Ferrara,  famous 
for  the  poets  patronized  by  the  house  of  Este.  The 
northern  scholar  apparently  saw  neither  the  poets  nor 
the  princes.  One  of  the  most  famous  scions  of  the  ducal 
family  was  Isabella  d’Este,  who  had  married  a  Gonzaga, 
marquis  of  Mantua.  She  kept  up  relations  with  Ferrara, 
and  also  with  Florence  and  Bologna  during  these  years. 
In  1537  Cardinal  Bembo  noticed  a  protrait  of  Erasmus 
in  her  castle  at  Mantua,  but  this  had  almost  certainly 
been  sent  to  her  from  Germany  in  1521. 5  Erasmus  did, 
however,  meet  there  a  famous  scholar,  Celio  Calcagnini6 
who  weclomed  him  with  an  oration.  Calcagnini  was 


1  On  Alexander  Stuart,  who  fell  with  his  father  at  Flodden,  September  9, 
1513,  see  J.  Herkless  and  R.  K.  Hannay:  The  Archbishops  of  St.  Andrews , 
i,  215  ff,  and  Allen,  ep.  604,  2,  note. 

2 LB.  ii,  554B,  Adage ,  “Spartam  nactus  es,  hanc  orna.” 

3  To  Pirckheimer,  1528,  LB.  iii,  col.  1078B. 

4  To  Hector  Boece,  LB.  i,  unnumbered  page  (anno  1530). 

5  On  Isabella  d’Este,  the  life  in  two  volumes  by  Julia  Cartwright,  1903; 
on  this  portrait,  ibid.,  ii,  378.  V.  Cian:  Giornale  Storico  della  Lett.  Italiana, 
1887,  ix,  13 1.  The  painting,  together  with  one  of  Luther,  was  probably  sent 
Frederic  Gonzaga  by  his  agent  at  Worms.  See  Preserved  Smith:  “Some 
Early  Pictures  of  Luther,”  Scribner  s  Magazine ,  July,  1913,  p.  144. 

6  Allen,  iii,  p.  26. 


ITALY 


hi 


a  friend  of  Copernicus,  who  had  recently  (May  31,  1503) 
taken  his  doctorate  in  canon  law  at  Ferrara,  and  under 
whose  influence  Calcagnini  wrote  a  notable  work,  of  which 
only  the  title  has  survived:  That  the  sky  stands  still  and 
the  earth  moves.  Long  after  their  first  meeting  he  and 
Erasmus  renewed  their  friendly  relations  by  means  of 
letters.  In  his  work  on  Free  Will  Calcagnini  praised 
Erasmus's  book  on  the  same  subject,1  and  was  rewarded 
by  compliments  to  himself  in  subsequent  editions  of  the 
Adages  and  in  the  Ciceronianus,  for  which  he  wrote  to 
thank  the  author.2  At  the  same  time  he  endeavored  to 
protect  the  humanist  from  Catholic  attacks  that  threat¬ 
ened  him  in  later  life.3 

After  stopping  only  a  few  days  at  Ferrara,  the  royal 
youths  were  taken  by  their  preceptors  to  Siena.  At 
Carnival  time,  February,  1509,  they  saw  a  curious  bull¬ 
fight,  in  which  the  animal  was  confronted  not  by  a 
swordsman  or  by  a  mounted  lancer,  but  by  wooden 
images  of  various  beasts,  moved  by  men  hidden  inside 
them.4  At  Siena  Erasmus  met  Richard  Pace,5  now  a 
student  at  Padua  and  later  a  trusted  diplomatic  agent 
of  Henry  VIII.  Another  new  acquaintance  was  James 
Piso,  ambassador  of  Hungary  to  Julius,  who  found  at 
a  bookseller's  a  manuscript  codex  of  Erasmus’s  epistles, 
which  he  bought  and  returned  to  the  author.  Not 
thinking  at  that  time  of  publishing  his  correspondence, 
the  humanist  burned  the  manuscript.6  While  recuperat¬ 
ing  from  an  illness  he  wrote  a  Declamation  on  Death , 
later  published.7 

In  the  spring  of  1509  Erasmus  went  to  Rome.8  The 

1  C.  Calcagnini  Opera  aliquot,  1544,  p.  395  f,  to  Bonaventura  Pistophilus, 
Ferrara,  January  5th,  1525. 

•Calcagnini  to  Erasmus,  September  17,  1533.  Ibid.,  p.  166. 

3  Calcagnini  to  Augustine  Eugubinus,  no  date;  ibid.,  p.  149. 

4  LB.  ix,  516C. 

6  Allen,  ep.  210. 

6  Allen,  ep.  216:  LB.  ep.  507. 

7  Allen,  ep.  604. 

8  On  the  chronology  of  Erasmus’s  movements,  cf.  Allen,  i,  p.  452.  He  can 
be  traced  in  Rome  on  April  6th  and  April  30th. 


1 12 


ERASMUS 


town,  of  about  40,000  inhabitants,  could  not  com¬ 
pare  in  size  or  wealth  with  Florence  (100,000)  or  Venice 
(167,000),  still  less  with  Paris.  Save  for  the  papal 
court,  it  was  a  city  of  the  dead,  living  on  memories  of 
its  great  past.  “Without  the  curia  Rome  would  resemble 
a  desert  rather  than  a  city,”  said  Paul  Jovius,  and 
Erasmus  expressed  much  the  same  opinion.1  “Rome 
is  not,”  he  once  exclaimed,  “she  has  nothing  but  ruins 
and  rubbish,  the  scars  and  vestiges  of  her  former  calami¬ 
ties.”2  These  ruins  occupied  more  ground  than  the 
inhabited  region  and  among  them  wandered  goats — 
fit  svmbol  of  desolation.  Visible  remains  of  the  world’s 
capital  of  a  bygone  age  were  the  baths  and  theaters, 
the  Colosseum  and  many  temples.  It  is  remarkable 
that  while  Luther’s  table  talk  has  many  references  to 
the  antiquities  he  saw  in  1510,  Erasmus  seldom  speaks 
of  them.  In  fact,  it  is  a  comment  on  the  indifference  to 
archaeological  research  of  the  greatest  scholar  of  Northern 
Europe  that  he  did  not  know  where  the  site  of  the 
Capitol  was,  though  the  spot  was  then,  as  now,  pointed 
out  to  the  traveler.3 

The  humanist  did  not,  however,  strike  Rome  quite 
at  the  nadir  of  her  glory.  Half  a  century  earlier  she 
had  been  still  more  squalid  and  neglected,  but  the  popes 
of  the  Renaissance  had  begun  to  make  broader  streets, 
handsome  squares,  and  beautiful  buildings.  The  im¬ 
provement  received  a  great  impulse  from  Julius  II, 
who  brought  from  Florence  and  other  cities  the  best 
artists  to  beautify  his  city.  Resolved  to  erect  a  new 
and  splendid  church  fit  for  the  capital  of  Christendom, 
he  employed  Bramante  to  make  the  plans.  This  architect, 
with  the  superb  self-confidence  of  the  new  age  and  its 
contempt  for  the  mediaeval  style,  began  by  destroying 
the  ancient  St.  Peter’s  and  other  monuments  to  such 

1  On  Rome  in  1509,  cf.  E.  Rodocanachi:  Rome  au  temps  de  Jules  II  et  de 
Leon  X ,  1912.  H.  Bohmer:  Luthers  Romfahrt ,  1914,  pD.  88-158. 

3  LB.  i,  1016F. 

s  Allen,  ep.  710;  Nichols,  ep.  683,  November  13,  1517.  Cf.  Mirabilia 
Urbis  Romae,  translated  by  F.  M.  Nichols,  1889,  pp.  16,  88. 


ITALY 


113 

an  extent  that  his  contemporaries  dubbed  him  “  Ruin- 
ante. ^ ”  In  1509  the  tribune  and  nave  of  the  old  church 
were  still  standing,  while  of  the  new  only  a  beginning 
had  been  made.  In  this  year  Michelangelo  was  working 
on  the  Sistine  Chapel,  and  Raphael  had  commenced 
decorating  the  Stanza  della  Segnatura.  The  Vatican 
palace  had  been  restored  on  a  magnificent  scale  by 
Nicholas  V  (1477),  but  was  further  enlarged  by  Julius  II. 
Bramante  drew  plans  for  two  corridors  from  the  old 
Vatican  to  the  Belvedere  Place;  the  space  between 
them,  70  yards  by  327  yards,  was  divided  into  two 
courts,  one  of  which  was  to  make  an  arena  for  bull¬ 
fights  and  tournaments.1  Though  the  work  was  not 
completed  until  1511,  it  is  possibly  here  that  Erasmus 
saw  a  spectacle  which  he  describes.2  “I  was  drawn  to 
it,”  says  he: 

by  friends,  for  of  myself  I  never  take  pleasure  in  these  bloody 
games,  the  relics  of  pagan  antiquity.  In  the  interval  between  the 
killing  of  one  bull  and  the  bringing  out  of  another,  a  marked  clown 
leaped  into  the  midst,  with  his  left  hand  wound  in  a  cloak  and  with 
the  right  brandishing  a  sword;  he  went  through  all  the  gestures 
of  real  toreadors,  coming  up,  retreating,  and  pretending  to  fight.  .  .  . 
This  man’s  jokes  pleased  me  more  than  the  deeds  of  the  others.3 

This  reminiscence  serves  to  remind  us  that  the  Curia 
was  one  of  the  gayest  courts  in  Europe.  The  cardinals 
had  splendid  palaces  in  the  Borgo — the  one  good  quarter 
of  the  city — and  lived  like  worldly  princes.  Erasmus 
knew  several  of  them,  Domenico  Grimani,  who,  with 
18,000  ducats  a  year,  received  the  humanist  affably, 
not  as  a  man  of  humble  rank,4  but  as  a  colleague,  and 
Raphael  Riario,  Cardinal  of  St.  George,5  one  of  the  most 


1  L.  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes ,  English  transl.  ed.  by  Antrobus,  vi,  484. 

*  LB.  x,  1754. 

•The  brutal  sport  was  finally  prohibited  by  Pius  V  in  1567.  See  Lecky: 
History  of  Rationalism ,  i,  303. 

4  To  Eugubinus,  March  26,  1531.  Lond.  xxvi,  34;  LB.  iii,  col.  1374  f; 
Nichols,  i,  p.  461. 

•Allen,  epp.  333,  334;  Nichols,  epp.  318,  319.  Allen,  i,  p.  568. 


ERASMUS 


114 

powerful  men  at  Rome.  He  also  met  Cardinal  de’ 
Medici,  later  Clement  VII.1 

Of  the  venality  of  the  papal  court  he  saw  something. 
He  knew  a  man  who  made  his  living  by  fraudulent 
dealing  in  benefices  and  had  once  cheated  an  applicant 
for  an  Irish  bishopric,  by  making  him  pay  for  an  appoint¬ 
ment  to  a  see  that  was  not  vacant.2  Erasmus  must  have 
seen  many  of  the  relics,  mostly  spurious  and  often 
absurd,  with  which  the  Holy  City  was  filled,  for  his  works 
are  full  of  allusions  to  such  things.  He  witnessed  the 
blasphemies,3  and  also  the  levities,  indulged  in  by 
unworthy  priests.  On  Good  Friday,  1509,  he  heard  a 
sermon  delivered  by  the  celebrated  Latinist,  Inghirami,4 
nominally  on  the  death  of  Christ,  but  really  stuffed 
with  fulsome  flattery  of  Julius  II,  served  up  in  the 
purest  Ciceronian  rhetoric.  The  preacher,  who  neither 
understood  nor  cared  for  his  solemn  subject,  delighted 
only  to  exhibit  his  learning  by  comparing  the  Saviour 
in  turn  to  Curtius,  to  Cecrops,  to  Aristides,  and  to 
Iphigenia. 

A  severe  moral  judgment  is  occasionally  expressed 
in  the  Dutchman’s  allusions  to  Rome.5  The  town  was 
full  of  demi-mondaines,  some  of  whom  lived  in  splendor, 
like  Greek  Hetaerae,  the  friends  of  great  men,  and  the 
objects  of  poets’  adulation.  They  often  took  classical 
names,  as  Imperia,  Polyxena,  or  Penthesilea.  It  was 
perhaps  with  an  eye  to  one  of  them,  or  possibly  to  the 
scandalous  repute  of  Lucretia  Borgia,  that  Erasmus 
gave  the  name  Lucretia  to  the  harlot  of  one  of  his 
Colloquies .6  In  this  same  dialogue  the  woman  expresses 

1  Letter  of  Medici  to  Aleander,  autumn,  1521,  instructing  Aleander  to  treat 
Erasmus  considerately.  Balan:  Monumenta  Reformations  Luther  ana,  1884, 
no.  53;  Lammer:  Monumenta  Faticana,  1861,  pp.  1  ff. 

*  De  Lingua,  LB.  iv,  71 1. 

*  LB.  i,  732C. 

4  Ciceronianus,  LB.  i,  993  f;  cf.  Rodocanachi,  p.  138.  A  portrait  of  Inghi¬ 
rami  by  Raphael  is  at  Fenway  Court,  Boston,  Massachusetts. 

6  LB.  iv,  483.  Praise  of  Folly.  Nichols,  ii,  6  IF. 

8  LB.  i,  718  ff.  On  these  women  see  E.  Rodocanachi:  Courtis anes  et  Bouffons, 
1894. 


ITALY 


115 

the  opinion  that  all  men  who  visit  Rome  are  made 
worse  thereby,  and  the  youth  who  is  talking  to  her 
replies  that  he,  personally,  has  been  saved  by  the  New 
Testament  of  Erasmus. 

Although  the  Italian  jealousy  of  foreigners  later  gave 
rise  to  the  rumor  that  Christopher  Longueil,  who  was 
copying  manuscripts,  was  paid  by  Erasmus  and  Bude 
to  rob  Rome  of  her  literary  treasures,1  the  northern 
scholar  speaks  well  of  his  opportunities  for  study.  His 
literary  work  in  the  Holy  City,  however,  was  confined 
to  the  composition  of  two  orations,  one  in  favor  of 
making  war  on  Venice,  and  one  against  that  policy,  both 
written  at  the  express  desire  of  Cardinal  Riario  for  the 
pope.  Though  the  author  put  more  heart  into  the  plea 
for  peace,  the  other  won  the  day.2 

Of  his  general  impression  of  Rome,  Erasmus  wrote 
three  years  later  to  his  friend  Robert  Guibe,  a  Breton 
resident  in  the  city: 

Had  I  not  torn  myself  from  Rome,  I  could  never  have  resolved 
to  leave.  There  one  enjoys  sweet  liberty,  rich  libraries,  the  charming 
friendship  of  writers  and  scholars,  and  the  sight  of  antique  mon¬ 
uments.  I  was  honored  by  the  society  of  eminent  prelates,  so  that 
I  cannot  conceive  of  a  greater  pleasure  than  to  return  to  the  city.3 

Before  setting  his  face  northward  Erasmus,  probably 
in  April,4  made  a  short  visit  to  Naples,  of  which  the 
only  incident  preserved  is  his  inspection  of  the  Grotto 
di  Posilipo,  on  the  road  from  Naples  to  Cumae.  In  one 
place  he  calls  it  a  cave  of  pirates,  though  named  after 
the  Sibyls,  and  describes  the  walls  as  covered  with 
shells.5  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  its  darkness  and  of  the 


1  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes ,  English  transl.  ed.  by  Kerr,  viii,  228  f. 
This  was  in  1518-19. 

*  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations ,  Allen,  i,  p.  37.  In  1468  Bishop  Roderic  Sancius 
of  Zamora  and  Bartholomew  Platina  held  a  debate  at  Rome  on  a  similar 
subject,  the  former  speaking  for  war,  the  latter  for  peace.  G.  Butler:  Studies 
in  Statecraft,  1920,  p.  14. 

*  Allen,  ep.  253. 

4  Allen,  ep.  604,  2  note. 

8  Adagia,  LB.  ii,  no.  4120. 


ii  6 


ERASMUS 


light  of  the  entrance,  shining  in  the  distance  like  a  star.1 
A  famous  Neapolitan  known  to  him,  though  perhaps 
not  until  later,  a  man  to  whom  he  wrote  of  the  libraries 
at  Naples,  was  John  Peter  Caraffa,  founder  of  the 
Theatine  Order,  and  later  pope  as  Paul  IV.2 

That  Erasmus  did  not  settle  in  Italy  was  due  to  the 
high  hopes  of  preferment  held  out  to  him  by  English 
friends  on  the  accession  of  Henry  VIII  to  the  throne 
on  May  22,  1 509.  The  event  was  announced  to  him 
by  Mountjoy  in  words  implying  that  the  golden  age 
of  learning  was  about  to  dawn,  and  that  the  new  Henry 
would  be  not  only  Octavus,  but  Octavius.  The  young 
prince,  he  said,  only  wished  he  were  more  learned,  and 
promised  to  cherish  all  scholars,  on  the  ground  that 
“without  them  we  should  hardly  exist  at  all.”3  Eras¬ 
mus’s  hopes  of  profiting  by  the  esteem  of  a  prince 
whom  he  already  knew  were  increased  by  a  letter  from 
Warham  seeming  to  promise  something  definite.4  He 
therefore  hastened  north,  calling  on  Bombasius  at 
Bologna  sometime  before  September  28th,5  and  giving 
him  an  eloquent  account  of  his  expectations.  He 
crossed  the  Splugen  to  Chur,  thence  to  Constance  and 
Strassburg,  and  so  down  the  Rhine  to  Antwerp.  After 
a  short  visit  at  Louvain6  he  proceeded  to  England.7 

1  Allen,  ep.  756. 

*  Allen,  epp.  377,  640;  i,  p.  550. 

3  Allen,  ep.  215. 

4  Allen,  ep.  214. 

4  Nolhac:  Les  Correspondants  d’ Aide  Afanuce,  1888,  p.  84;  Nichols,  i,  p. 
465;  Allen,  i,  p.  452. 

6  Allen,  ep.  266;  Nichols,  ii,  p.  84. 

7  Rhenanus  to  Charles  V,  Allen,  i,  p.  62;  Nichols,  i,  p.  32. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY 

THE  most  widely  read,  though  not  the  most  im¬ 
portant,  work  of  Erasmus,  the  one  which  gave  him 
an  immediate  international  reputation,  was  The  Praise 
of  Folly ,  written  just  after  his  return  from  Italy,  while 
he  was  waiting  in  More’s  house  for  the  arrival  of  his 
books  and  was  suffering  from  an  attack  of  lumbago.1 

Something  of  the  spirit  and  intention  of  the  Folly  is 
revealed  in  the  dedicatory  epistle  to  More: 

On  returning  from  Italy  ...  I  chose  to  amuse  myself  with  the 
Praise  of  Folly  ( Moria ).  What  Pallas,  you  will  say,  put  that  into 
your  head?  Well,  the  first  thing  that  struck  me  was  your  surname 
More,  which  is  just  as  near  the  name  of  Moria  or  Folly  as  you  are 
far  from  the  thing  itself,  from  which,  by  general  vote  you  are  remote 
indeed.  In  the  next  place  I  surmised  that  this  playful  production 
of  our  genius  would  find  special  favor  with  you,  disposed  as  you 
are  to  take  pleasure  in  a  jest  of  this  kind,  that  is  neither,  unless  I 
mistake,  unlearned  nor  altogether  inept.  .  .  .  For,  as  nothing  is 
more  trifling  than  to  treat  serious  questions  frivolously,  so  nothing 
is  more  amusing  than  to  treat  trifles  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  your¬ 
self  anything  but  a  trifler. 

This  last  sentence  gives  the  key  to  the  Folly.  It  is  a 
witty  sermon,  an  earnest  satire,  a  joke  with  an  ethical 
purpose.  Satire  of  this  peculiar  flavor,  mockery  with  a 
moral,  was  characteristic  of  the  age.  How  much  of  it 
there  is  in  Luther,  how  much  in  Hutten,  how  much  in 
Rabelais,  how  much  in  the  Epistles  of  Obscure  Men! 

1  Allen,  epp.  337;  222;  Nichols,  epp.  317  (ii,  p.  5),  212.  The  Encomium 
Moria  is  printed  LB.  iv,  381  ff;  also  see  Stultitice  Laus  Des.  Erasmi  Rot. 
Recognovit  et  adnotavit  I.  B.  Kan.  1898.  Many  editions  of  the  English  versions; 
see  The  Praise  of  Folly ,  written  by  Erasmus  1509,  translated  by  J.  Wilson, 
1668,  ed.  by  Mrs.  P.  S.  Alien,  1913. 

117 


1 1 8 


ERASMUS 


Erasmus  probably  had  many  of  the  earlier  satirists 
in  mind,  though  he  mentions  as  literary  sources  only 
classical  models,  beginning  with  the  Batrachomyomachia. 
He  speaks  particularly  of  Lucian,  the  author  of  dialogues 
on  the  fly,  on  the  parasite,  and  on  the  ass,  and  of  course 
Erasmus’s  careful  study  and  translation  of  this  author 
contributed  to  his  own  mastery  of  the  ironic  style.  But 
there  were  certainly  works  nearer  his  own  time  which 
also  influenced  him.  If  he  would  have  scorned  the  bar¬ 
barous  Goliardic  songs,  which  contain  a  vast  amount 
of  mockery  directed  against  the  Church,  he  would  have 
felt  much  less  repulsion  for  the  works  of  Poggio  and 
Aretino,  both  of  whom  wrote  Faceticz  with  many  a 
shrew7d  blow  directed  at  superstition  and  human  foibles. 
He  knew  them  both,  as  well  as  Skelton,  the  English  wit. 

At  Rome  he  must  have  become  acquainted  with 
one  of  the  famous  vehicles  of  caricature  and  lampoon, 
the  statue  of  Pasquin,  from  which  the  word  ‘‘pas¬ 
quinade”  is  derived.  In  1501  there  had  been  dug 
up  there  a  statue  lacking  nose,  arms,  and  part  of  the 
legs,  which  was  then  believed  to  be  a  Hercules,  but  is 
now  known  to  represent  Menelaus  carrying  the  body 
of  Patroclus.  This  statue  was  set  up  by  its  discoverer, 
Cardinal  Oliver  Caraffa,  in  the  Piazza  Navona,  near  a 
shrine  to  which  a  procession  was  annually  made  on  the 
day  of  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist  (April  25th).  The 
gaiety  of  the  Roman  populace,  seeing  something  absurd 
in  the  mutilated  statue,  began  on  these  holidays  to  dress 
it  up  in  a  travesty  of  some  antique  deity  or  hero.  Thus, 
in  1509,  when  Erasmus  may  well  have  been  present, 
the  fragment  was  decked  out  to  represent  Janus,  in 
allusion  to  the  war  that  had  broken  out  with  Venice. 
The  immense  publicity  given  to  the  statue  gradually 
led  to  its  being  used  as  a  convenient  billboard  for  post¬ 
ing  lampoons- — for  the  people,  deprived  of  power,  sought 
revenge  on  their  masters  by  heaping  them  with  ridicule, 
thus  tempering  despotism  with  epigram.  Finally  the 
statue  was  named  Pasquin  after  a  citizen  particularly 


THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY 


119 

noted  for  his  biting  tongue.  By  the  year  1509  three 
thousand  of  these  epigrams  were  known,  and  a  collection 
of  them  had  been  published.1 

But  if  Erasmus  borrowed  something  from  Pasquin, 
he  found  a  more  direct  suggestion  for  his  literary  form 
in  the  N  arrenschiff  of  Sebastian  Brant,  first  published 
in  1494,  and  translated  into  Latin  as  Stultifera  Navis 
by  Locher  Philomusus  in  1497,  and  again  by  Erasmus’s 
friend,  Josse  Bade  the  printer,  in  1505,  as  Navis  Stulti¬ 
fera.  It  appeared  in  the  French  translation  of  Pierre 
Riviere  in  1497  as  La  Nef  des  Folz  du  Monde.  Two 
English  versions,  one  by  Henry  Watson,  and  a  more 
famous  one  by  Alexander  Barclay,  were  printed  under 
the  title  Ship  of  Fools ,  both  in  I5°9-2 

But  every  reader  of  the  Folly  must  be  struck  by  the 
amount  in  it  taken  from  the  writer’s  own  observation. 
When  he  speaks  of  what  is  rotten  in  Church  or  state, 
his  reflections  are  usually  suggested  by  something  he 
himself  has  seen.  When  he  satirizes  the  pope,  it  is 
Julius  II  he  has  in  mind;  when  he  points  out  the  asininity 
of  the  theologians,  his  examples  are  drawn  from  the 
lucubrations  of  his  fellow  student,  John  Major.3  And 
if  he  drew  few  facts  from  predecessors,  preferring  to 
paint  from  the  life,  he  had  even  less  in  common  with 
their  spirit.  With  Pasquin  satire  was  a  dagger,  with 
Brant  a  scourge;  with  Erasmus  it  was  a  mirror.  It  is 
true  that  all  satire  starts  with  the  axiom  that  the  world 
is  full  of  fools;  but  whereas  some  men,  like  Brant  and 
Swift,  take  this  to  heart  and  with  scsva  indignatio  gird 
at  folly  as  wickedness,  and  at  wickedness  as  folly,  others, 
like  Erasmus  and  Rabelais,  find  the  idea  infinitely 
amusing.  So  the  Folly  personified  by  the  Dutch  wit 
was  neither  vice  nor  stupidity,  but  a  quite  charming 

1  See  Ev.cyclopcedia  Britannica,  s.  v.  “Pasquinade,”  and  E.  Rodocanachi: 
Rome  au  temps  de  Jules  II  et  de  Leon  X ,  1912,  pp.  153  ff. 

2Herford:  Literary  Relations  of  England  and  Germany  in  the  Sixteenth 
Century,  1886,  p.  324.  Mrs.  P.  S.  Allen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  iv  f.  Later  Erasmus 
knew  Brant  personally,  and  wrote  an  epigram  to  him,  LB.  i,  1223. 

'Cf.  supra,  p.  23. 


120 


ERASMUS 


naivete,  the  natural  impulse  of  the  child  or  of  the 
unsophisticated  man.  Though  her  birth  is  derived  from 
Pluto,  she  is  no  grim  demon,  but  an  amiable  gossip, 
rather  beneficent  than  malignant. 

Without  her,  society  would  tumble  about  our  ears, 
and  the  race  die  out — for  what  calculating  wise  man  or 
woman  would  take  the  risk  of  marrying  and  bringing 
up  children!  Indeed,  would  women  or  children  have 
any  attraction  without  her? — like  Sir  Thomas  Brown, 
Erasmus  evidently  thinks  that  the  act  of  procreation 
is  one  that  no  wise  man  would  willingly  perform.  With¬ 
out  Folly,  says  our  author,  there  would  be  more  care 
than  pleasure;  without  her  there  would  be  no  family, 
for  marriages  would  be  few  and  divorces  many.  Nay, 
there  would  be  neither  society  nor  government  at  all. 
Did  not  the  wisest  legislators,  Numa  and  Minos,  rec¬ 
ognize  the  necessity  of  fooling  the  people?  Socrates 
showed  his  good  sense  in  declaring  that  a  philosopher 
would  keep  away  from  politics;  Plato  was  mistaken  in 
thinking  that  philosophers  should  be  kings  and  kings 
philosophers,  for  history  has  shown  no  states  more 
miserable  than  those  ruled  by  such. 

Even  the  most  esteemed  arts  owe  much  to  Folly,  for 
medicine  is  mainly  quackery  and  most  lawyers  are  but 
pettifoggers.  In  fact,  men  would  be  far  better  off  if 
they  lived  in  a  state  of  nature;  just  as,  among  animals, 
bees,  that  live  according  to  their  instincts,  fare  best, 
and  horses,  forced  to  unnatural  labor,  fare  worst.  So 
the  wisest  men  are  the  most  wretched,  and  fools  and 
idiots,  “unfrighted  by  bugbear  tales  of  another  world,” 
are  happiest.  How  much  pleasure  comes  from  hobbies, 
which  are  mere  foolishness!  One  man  delights  in  hunt¬ 
ing,  another  in  building,  a  third  in  gaming,  but  a  sage 
despises  all  such  frivolity. 

Next,  the  follies  of  superstition  are  satirized,  at  first 
in  words  that  remind  the  reader  strongly  of  the  En¬ 
chiridion.  The  analogy  between  the  worship  of  the 
saints  and  the  ancient  polytheism  is  pointed  out: 


THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY 


1 21 


Polyphemus  has  become  Christopher  to  keep  his  devo¬ 
tees  safe;  St.  Erasmus  gives  them  wealth;  St.  George 
is  but  the  Christian  Hercules.  “But  what  shall  I  say 
of  those  who  flatter  themselves  with  the  cheat  of  pardons 
and  indulgences  ?”  These  fools  think  they  can  buy  not 
only  all  the  blessings  and  pleasures  of  this  life,  but 
heaven  hereafter,  and  the  priests  encourage  them  in 
their  error  for  the  sake  of  filthy  lucre. 

Each  nation,  too,  has  its  own  pet  foibles.  England 
boasts  the  handsomest  women;  the  Scots  all  claim 
gentle  blood;  the  French  pique  themselves  on  good 
breeding  and  skill  in  polemic  divinity;  the  Italians 
point  to  their  own  learning  and  eloquence. 

Neither  do  the  wise  escape  having  their  own  peculiar 
follies.  No  race  of  men  is  more  miserable  than  stu¬ 
dents  of  literature. 

When  anyone  had  found  out  who  was  the  mother  of  Anchises,  or 
has  lighted  on  some  old,  unusual  word,  such  as  bubsequus,  bovinator, 
manticulator,  or  other  like  obsolete,  cramped  terms,  or  can,  after 
a  great  deal  of  poring,  spell  out  the  inscription  on  some  battered 
monument,  Lord!  what  joy,  what  triumph,  what  congratulations 
upon  his  success,  as  if  he  had  conquered  Africa  or  taken  Babylon 
the  Great! 

As  for  the  scientists  or  “natural  philosophers,” 

How  sweetly  they  rave  when  they  build  themselves  innumerable 
worlds,  when  they  measure  the  sun,  moon,  stars,  and  spheres  as 
though  with  a  tape  to  an  inch,  when  they  explain  the  cause  of  thunder, 
the  winds,  eclipses,  and  other  inexplicable  phenomena,  never  hesi¬ 
tating,  as  though  they  were  the  private  secretaries  of  creative 
Nature  or  had  descended  from  the  council  of  the  gods  to  us,  while 
in  the  meantime  Nature  magnificently  laughs  at  them  and  at  their 
conjectures. 

In  this  disparaging  estimate  of  natural  science,  though 
the  speaker  is  Folly,  we  doubtless  have  the  real  opinion 
of  Erasmus,  who,  in  this,  but  followed  Socrates  and  the 
ancient  world  in  general.  The  theology  of  the  divines 
is  still  more  ridiculous: 

They  will  explain  the  precise  manner  in  which  original  sin  is  derived 
from  our  first  parents;  they  will  satisfy  you  in  what  manner,  by 


122 


ERASMUS 


what  degrees  and  in  how  long  a  time  our  Saviour  was  conceived 
in  the  Virgin’s  womb,  and  demonstrate  how  in  the  consecrated 
wafer  the  accidents  can  exist  without  the  substance.  Nay,  these 
are  accounted  trivial,  easy  questions;  they  have  greater  difficulties 
behind,  which,  nevertheless,  they  solve  with  as  much  expedition 
as  the  former — namely,  whether  supernatural  generation  requires 
any  instant  of  time?  whether  Christ,  as  a  son,  bears  a  double,  specially 
distinct  relation  to  God  the  Father  and  his  Virgin  Mother?  whether 
it  would  be  possible  for  the  first  person  of  the  Trinity  to  hate  the 
second?  whether  God,  who  took  our  nature  upon  him  in  the  form 
of  a  man,  could  as  well  have  become  a  woman,  a  devil,  an  ass,  a 
gourd,  or  a  stone? 

So  Folly  enumerates  the  stupidities  and  injustices 
done  by  the  monks,  who  insist  that  ignorance  is  the 
first  essential,  by  kings  and  courtiers,  by  pope  and 
cardinals  whose  lives  contrast  so  painfully  with  their 
professions. 

I  was  lately  [she  continues]  at  a  theological  discussion,  for  I  often 
go  to  such  meetings,  when  some  one  asked  what  authority  there 
was  in  the  Bible  for  burning  heretics  instead  of  convincing  them  by 
argument?  A  certain  hard  old  man,  a  theologian  by  the  very  look 
of  him,  not  without  a  great  deal  of  disdain,  answered  that  it  was 
the  express  injunction  of  St.  Paul,  when  he  said:  “Haereticum  hom- 
inem  post  unam  et  alteram  correptionem  devita.”1  When  he  yelled 
these  words  over  and  over  again  and  some  were  wondering  what 
had  struck  the  man,  he  finally  explained  that  Paul  meant  that 
the  heretic  must  be  put  out  of  life — de  vita.  Some  burst  out 
laughing,  but  others  seemed  to  think  this  interpretation  perfectly 
theological. 

If  the  passages  just  quoted  represent  rather  the  lighter 
side  of  the  satire,  by  which  it  was  affiliated  with  Pasquin 
and  the  Obscure  Men,  there  are  not  wanting  admonitions 
keyed  in  a  higher  mood.  If  the  author  was  a  wit,  he 
was  also  a  scholar;  if  he  was  a  man  of  the  world,  he 
was  also  a  moralist;  and  it  is  less  the  gauds  of  the 
outer  habit  of  fun  than  the  solid  gold  of  serious  precept 
within  that  make  The  Praise  of  Folly  a  criticism  of  life 

1  I.  e.y  “A  man  that  is  an  heretic  after  the  first  and  second  admonition 
reject/’  Titus  iii,  io.  This  incident  was  not  invented  by  Erasmus,  but  was 
told  him  as  a  real  occurrence  by  Colet.  See  the  note  in  his  New  Testament 
to  the  verse  cited. 


THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY 


123 


with  permanent  literary  value.  If  he  decks  his  orator  like 
Columbine  to  attract  the  crowd,  he  endows  her  with 
eloquence  worthy  of  a  missionary  to  convert  them. 
When  her  cymbals  have  drawn  an  audience  she  forgets 
her  part,  and  Folly  speaks  like  wisdom;  indeed,  the 
most  natural  words  to  describe  her  animadversions  are 
the  words  of  Scripture:  “Whom  she  loveth  she  chasten- 
eth.”  Hearken  to  her  and  hear  the  same  message  as 
that  set  forth  by  the  Christian  Knight,  and  by  St. 
Peter  himself:  “To  live  well  is  the  way  to  die  well; 
you  will  best  get  rid  of  your  sins  by  adding  to  your 
alms  hatred  of  vice,  tears  of  repentance,  watching, 
prayer,  and  fasting,  and  a  better  life/’  Away  with  your 
outward  ceremonies  and  futile  works  by  which,  as  by  a 
kind  of  religious  mathematics,  you  would  cheat  God 
and  the  devil;  learn  to  do  right  and  thus  to  cultivate  a 
pure  and  undefiled  Christianity!  The  world  then  was 
hungry  for  the  words  of  reform  and  of  the  gospel;  and 
it  was  just  because  the  satirist  weighted  his  shafts  of 
ridicule  that  they  carried  far,  even  as  one  can  throw  a 
heavy  stone  further  than  the  lightest  feather. 

Though  Erasmus  completed  the  work  in  the  summer 
of  1509,  and  showed  it  in  manuscript  to  several  approving 
friends,  he  did  not  print  it  until  two  years  later.1  His 
statement  that  Richard  Croke,2  one  of  his  English 
pupils,  was  responsible  for  the  publication,  is  either  a 
polite  fiction  or  else  a  proof  that  he  gave  it  to  some  one 
else  to  have  printed,  in  order  to  disavow  it  afterward, 
if  necessary.  At  any  rate,  Erasmus  went  to  Paris,  in 
the  spring  of  1 5 1 1,  to  see  it  through  the  press.  A  glimpse 
of  his  sojourn  there  is  given  in  a  letter,3  written  sixteen 


1  On  the  several  editions,  Bibliotheca  Belgica ,  Erasmus ,  Moria  ( Distribution 
de  2  decembre ,  1908  ff);  Allen,  i,  p.  459;  Nichols,  ii,  1  ff;  Mrs.  P.  S.  Allen, 
op.  cit.y  introduction. 

*  See  J.  T.  Sheppard:  Richard  Croke,  1919.  Croke  (c.  1489-1558)  taught 
Greek  at  Louvain,  Cologne,  Leipzig,  and  Cambridge,  and  filled  several 
diplomatic  missions.  Erasmus  probably  knew  him  at  King’s  College, 
Cambridge,  where  he  was  admitted  as  a  scholar  on  April  4,  1506. 

•  Enthoven,  ep.  49;  Nichols,  ii,  p.  12. 


124 


ERASMUS 


years  later,  by  Stephen  Gardiner,  the  statesman  and 
prelate,  at  this  time  a  servant  of  the  humanist,  and  one 
especially  skilled  in  dressing  salads.  The  first  edition, 
with  a  dedicatory  epistle  to  More,  dated  June  9th,1 
was  printed,  without  date,  by  Gilles  de  Gourmont  at 
Paris  in  1 51 1.  It  was  reprinted  at  Strassburg  in  August, 

1 51 1,  and  October,  1512;  at  Antwerp  in  January,  1512, 
and  by  Badius  at  Paris,  revised  by  the  author,  in  July, 

1512.  In  all,  forty  editions  were  called  for  during  the 
author’s  lifetime. 

A  commentary  by  Gerard  Lystrius  was  added  to  the 
Froben  edition  of  1515,  and  to  most  of  the  subsequent 
reprints.  It  was  long  suspected  that  these  notes  were 
by  Erasmus  himself,  and  it  was  thought  the  name  was 
but  a  disguise.  Lystrius,  however,  was  a  real  person, 
and  the  secret  of  his  operations  has  only  just  been  dis¬ 
covered.  Erasmus,  indeed,  began  the  job  himself,  but 
later  turned  it  over  to  Lystrius,  a  youth  eager  for  glory. 
Even  afterward,  however,  Erasmus  probably  furnished 
the  bulk  of  the  material,  including  a  dedicatory  epistle 
purporting  to  come  from  Lystrius  and  highly  praising 
the  work.  As  one  sees  by  the  example  of  Sir  Walter 
Scott,  who  in  anonymous  reviews  compared  the  Waverley 
Novels  to  Shakespeare’s  plays,  this  questionable  practice 
of  self-laudation  in  disguise  was  indulged  in  by  others 
than  by  the  author  of  the  Folly.  Lystrius,  having 
scored  an  easy  success  with  his  annotations  on  the  Folly , 
wished  to  collaborate  further  in  a  similar  edition  of  the 
Enchiridion ,  but  Erasmus  refused.2 

In  1515  Hans  Holbein  the  younger  and  other  artists 
added  as  marginal  drawings  illustrations  that  have  often 
been  reproduced,  of  which  more  will  be  said  in  another 
place.3 

A  French  translation  was  made  by  George  Halwyn4 

1  Allen,  ep.  222. 

*  On  Lystrius,  Bibliotheca  Belgica,  Erasmus ,  Encomium  Moria ,  ed.  of  1676; 
Allen,  ii,  p.  407,  Erasmus  to  Bucer,  March  2,  1532. 

*  Infray  p.  152  f. 

4  Allen,  ep.  641.  Cf.  ep.  660. 


THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY 


125 


in  1517,  first  printed — if  this  is  indeed  the  same  version 
and  not  another — at  Paris  in  1520.  New  translations 
were  made  in  1642,  1670,  1713,  1780,  1789,  1826, 
1867,  1870-72,  and  1877.  The  first  of  several  Italian 
versions  was  published  in  1539;  the  first  of  many  Dutch 
in  1560.  Sir  Thomas  Chaloner,  poet  and  statesman,  put 
the  book  into  English  in  1549;  J.  Wilson  in  1668;  and 
White  Kennett,  later  Bishop  of  Peterborough,  in  1683, 
while  still  an  Oxford  undergraduate.  All  these  versions 
were  frequently  reprinted,  and  a  new  one  added  by 
James  Copner  in  1878.  Folly  began  to  speak  German 
in  1520,  Swedish  in  1738,  Danish  in  1745, 1  Russian  in 
1840,  Spanish  in  1842,  Modern  Greek  in  1864,  Czech  in 
1864,  and  Polish  in  1875. 

The  Praise  of  Folly  won  an  immediate  and  striking 
success.  Its  publication  marked  the  real  beginning  of 
that  immense  international  reputation  that  put  its 
author  on  a  pinnacle  in  the  world  of  letters  hardly 
surpassed  or  even  approached  by  anyone  later  save 
Voltaire.  The  editions  were  not  small;  within  one  month 
after  the  publication  of  a  new  reprint  in  March,  1515, 
seventeen  hundred  were  sold,2  and  by  1522  more  than 
twenty  thousand  copies  had  been  issued  in  all.3  Every¬ 
one  knew,  most  praised,  and  some  imitated  the  precious 
satire.  James  Wimpheling,  a  good  type  of  the  serious 
German  humanist,  later  distinguished  as  an  opponent 
of  Luther,  expressed  enthusiastic  admiration  for  it.4 
Ulrich  von  Hutten,  in  the  second  series  of  the  Epistolce 
Obscurorum  Virorum  (1517)  warmly  claimed  Erasmus 
as  the  inspirer  of  his  work.5 

Rabelais  owed  much  to  him.6  So  did  some  English 

1  There  is  extant  a  MS.  Icelandic  translation  of  the  Moria  made  in  1730. 
Cf.  An  Icelandic  Satire  ( Lof  Lyginnar)  by  Porleifur  Halldorsson,  ed.  H. 
Hermannsson,  1915,  introduction. 

*  Allen,  ep.  328.  April  17,  1515. 

*  LB.  ix,  360. 

4  Allen,  ep.  224. 

6  Epistolce  Obscurorum  Firorum,  ed.  Stokes,  1910,  p.  235,  and  other 
references,  for  which  see  index.  Allen,  ep.  363. 

6Thuasne:  Etudes  sur  Rabelais ,  1906,  chap.  ii. 


126 


ERASMUS 


jest-books,  especially  the  Tales  and  Quicke  Answer es, 
printed  about  1535,  and  reprinted,  enlarged,  as  Mery 
Tales ,  Wittie  Questions ,  and  Quicke  Answeres ,  in  1567.1 

But  against  the  general  chorus  of  laughter  and  of 
praise,  the  voice  of  the  theologians,  or  of  some  of  them, 
made  itself  heard  in  more  or  less  angry  protest.  The 
intensely  conservative  coterie  at  Louvain,  in  especial, 
murmured  against  him  who  had  mocked  their  foibles. 
One  Martin  Dorp,  having  found  that  Folly’s  cap  fitted 
him  when  he  tried  it  on,  complained  directly  to  the 
author,  and  was  answered  by  him  and  by  Thomas  More. 
The  latter  made  the  point  that  only  enemies  of  good 
literature  hated  the  Moria ,2  while  Erasmus  protested 
that  his  one  object  was  to  improve  mankind,  which  he 
thought  could  be  done  without  wounding  them.  He 
added  that  many  of  the  sentiments  expressed  by  Folly 
were  the  direct  opposite  of  his  own;  and  that  he  did  not 
see  why  theologians  should  be  so  sensitive  as  a  class, 
whereas  kings,  navigators,  and  physicians  were  equally 
held  up  to  ridicule.3 

Renewed  and  incessant  attacks  kept  Erasmus  busy 
defending  himself  throughout  life.  He  protested  that 
he  had  twitted  no  one  by  name  but  himself,4 — apparently 
agreeing  with  Mrs.  Gamp,  “which,  no  names  being 
mentioned,  no  offence  can  be  took” — and  he  added  that 
Leo  X,  having  read  the  book  through,  only  laughed, 
and  said,  “I  am  glad  our  Erasmus  is  in  the  Moria.”5 

Among  the  few  adverse  judgments  expressed  by 
humanists,  that  of  Stephen  Dolet,  “the  martyr  of  the 
Renaissance,”  is  notable: 

Most  persons  praise  the  Encomium  Moria,  many  really  admire 
it;  yet,  if  you  examine  it,  the  impudence  of  Erasmus  will  strike 

1  H.  de  Vocht:  De  Invloed  van  Erasmus  op  dc  Engels che  Tooneelliteratuur  der 
XVIe  en  XV lie  Eeuven,  1908. 

2  More  to  Dorp,  Bruges,  October  21,  1515,  LB.  App.  ep.  513;  Mori  Opera , 
1689,  pp.  284-300. 

3  Allen,  ep.  337;  cf.  epp.  304,  347. 

4  Allen,  ep.  739;  cf.  LB.  iv,  487A. 

6  Allen,  ep.  749.  Cf.  the  Adage ,  “offas  ostendere,”  LB.  ii,  461. 


THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY 


127 


you  rather  than  the  real  force  of  his  language.  He  laughs,  jokes, 
makes  fun,  irritates,  inveighs,  and  raises  a  smile  even  at  Christ 
himself.1 

Some  of  the  Protestant  Reformers,  like  (Ecolampadius, 
loved  the  Aloria ,2  whereas  others,  like  Luther,  were 
repelled  by  it.  Luther  quotes  from  it,  though  not  by 
name  and  without  expressing  any  opinion  of  it,  in  his 
lectures  on  the  Psalms,  late  in  the  year  1516. 3  One 
might  think  that  he  would  have  relished  the  attack  on 
the  old  Church,  as  a  help  to  his  own  cause,  but  he  was 
soon  heard  to  cry  out  against  such  an  ally.  In  his  own 
copy  (Basle,  1532)  he  wrote:4 

When  Erasmus  wrote  his  Folly,  he  begot  a  daughter  like  himself. 
He  turns,  twists,  and  bites  like  an  awl,  but  he,  as  a  fool,  has  written 
true  folly. 

Another  satire,  of  far  less  importance,  which,  though 
published  anonymously,  brought  some  trouble  on  its 
author,  was  a  tiny  dialogue  entitled  Julius  excluded 
from  Heaven ,5  which  represented  the  pope  as  vainly 
seeking  admission  to  paradise.  Apparently  written  not 
long  after  the  death  of  Julius  II  (February  21,  1513), 
it  was  first  published  in  1517,  and  was  at  once  attributed 
to  Erasmus  by  Scheurl,  by  Pirckheimer,  and  by  Luther, 
as  well  as  by  other  friends  who  were  in  the  secret  of 
the  authorship.  He  endeavored,  by  elaborate  equivo¬ 
cation,  amounting  almost  but  not  quite  to  denial,  to 
mislead  prelates  and  others  inclined  to  take  offence  at 
the  bold  mockery  of  the  head  of  the  Church.  Luther 
judged  it  “so  jocund,  so  learned,  and  so  ingenious — that 
is,  so  entirely  Erasmian — that  it  makes  the  reader  laugh 

1  R.  C.  Christie:  Etienne  Dolet,  1899,  p.  191. 

2  Allen,  ep.  224. 

3  Luthers  JVerke ,  Weimar,  iv,  442,  cf.  Nachtrdge ,  p.  viii. 

4  Luther  s  Briefzvechsel,  ed.  Enders,  ix,  254. 

6  Reprinted  in  Booking:  Hutteni  Opera ,  1859-66,  iv,  421,  and  in  Jortin’s 
Life  of  Erasmus ,  1758-60,  ii,  600-622.  Translated  in  Froude’s  Life  and 
Letters  of  Erasmus.  Pastor,  History  of  the  Popes ,  English,  vi,  438  n.,  wrongly 
attributes  it  to  Faustus  Andrelinus.  Jortin,  loc.  cit .,  Nichols,  ii,  p.  446,  and 
Allen,  ep.  502,  introduction,  prove  it  to  be  by  Erasmus. 


128 


ERASMUS 


at  the  vices  of  the  Church,  over  which  every  true 
Christian  ought  rather  to  groan.”1  Later,  however,  his 
opinion  of  it  rose  so  high  that  he  would  have  liked  to 
translate  it  into  German,  but  feared  that  he  could  not 
do  justice  to  the  style.2 

1  L.  C.  ep.  42,  to  Spalatin,  November,  1517.  Enders,  i,  121. 

2  L.  C.  ep.  130,  February  20,  1519.  Enders,  1,433.  Cf.  Luthers  Tischreden , 
Weimar,  iv,  no.  4902,  May,  1540.  On  copies  sold  in  Oxford  in  1520  by  John 
Dome  see  Publications  of  the  Oxford  Historical  Society ,  v,  1885,  pp.  94,  113,  117. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  RHINE 

ERASMUS,  born  in  the  delta  of  the  Rhine,  spent 
many  years  on  the  banks  of  that  noble  river,  at 
the  Swiss  town  of  Basle.  Well  did  he  know  the  course 
of  the  famous  stream  from  Chur,  near  its  source,  to 
the  North  Sea;  with  the  great  cities  strung  like  beads 
on  its  blue  filament  he  was  well  acquainted,  passing 
through  them  often  in  his  frequent  journeyings.  For 
at  that  time  the  Rhine  was  a  principal  artery  of  European 
commerce  and  the  chief  avenue  from  the  northwestern 
coast  to  the  Alpine  lands  and  to  Italy. 

His  ascent  of  the  Rhine  in  the  summer  of  1514  was 
like  a  triumphal  progress.  The  fame  of  the  Folly , 
re-enforced  by  that  of  the  Adages  and  of  the  Enchiridion , 
already  gave  him  the  natural  leadership  of  the  large 
society  of  humanists  then  pulsing  into  lusty  life  in  the 
universities  and  wealthy  towns  of  Germany.  The 
Renaissance,  like  spring,  came  late  to  the  northern 
latitudes,  but  when  it  did  come  it  brought  verdant 
life.  With  the  earnestness  characteristic  of  their 
race,  young  Germans  seized  on  the  classic  literature, 
and  put  it  to  the  sack,  as  though  it  were  an  empire  to 
be  conquered  by  their  famous  soldiery.  Perhaps  they 
felt  like  the  American  who  remarked  that  though 
Chicago  hadn’t  had  much  time  for  culture  yet,  when  she 
did  get  around  to  it  she  would  make  it  hum.  Fraternities 
of  “poets,”  as  they  called  themselves,  were  formed  in 
every  town  of  any  pretensions,  as  well  as  at  the  acad¬ 
emies  of  learning.  These  men  worshiped  literature, 
hated  crabbed  scholasticism,  and  highly  resolved  to 
bring  in  a  new  reign  of  culture  and  of  light.  The  man 

129 


130 


ERASMUS 


who  had  mastered  the  classics,  who  had  routed  the  Philis¬ 
tines,  and  who  had  shown  the  path  of  progress,  was  their 
idol.  They  crowned  him  with  verses  as  with  diadems, 
they  burned  the  incense  of  their  homage  before  him. 
And  now  the  great  man,  “amiable  and  bearing  the  horn 
of  plenty,”1  was  to  come  among  them. 

Leaving  England  in  July,  1514,  after  a  few  visits  to 
friends  in  the  Netherlands,2  Erasmus  proceeded  to 
Mainz,3  the  seat  of  a  prince-archbishop,  who  had  also 
the  powers  and  titles  of  Elector,  Imperial  Arch-marshal, 
and  Primate  of  Germany.  The  occupant  of  the  see  was 
Albert  of  Brandenburg,  an  enterprising  and  unscrupulous 
Hohenzollern,  determined  to  play  a  brilliant  part  in 
politics  and  as  a  patron  of  the  liberal  arts.  Even  before 
his  day  his  predecessors  Berthold  von  Henneberg  (1484- 
1504)  and  Uriel  von  Gemmingen  (1508-14)  had  at¬ 
tracted  to  the  University  of  Mainz  leading  humanists, 
thus  making  that  academy,  together  with  Erfurt,  also 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  Mainz,  the  chief  center  of 
learning  in  Germany.  Famous,  as  Erasmus  knew, 
because  of  the  invention  of  printing,4  Mainz  had  now 
become  one  of  the  foci  of  the  popular  intellectual  revolu¬ 
tion  that  preceded  the  Reformation.  Whether  the 
humanist  met  the  young  archbishop,  with  whom  he 
afterward  corresponded,  is  not  known;  but  he  met  one 
of  his  courtiers,  Ulrich  von  Hutten.5 

Hutten,6  one  of  the  romantic  figures  of  the  time,  a 

1  Spalatin  to  Lang,  March  3,  1515,  L.  C.  ep.  9. 

8  Allen,  epp.  299,  301,  ii,  p.  5;  Nichols,  ep.  291. 

3  F.  Herrmann:  Die  evangelische  Bewegung  zu  Mainz  im  Re  for  motion  s- 
zeitalter,  1907;  and  various  encyclopaedias,  under  Mainz  and  Albert  of 
Brandenburg.  Also  Dietrich  und  Bader:  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der 
Universitaten  Mainz  und  Giessen. 

4  Allen,  ep.  919. 

6  Crotus  Rubeanus  is  mistaken  in  saying,  in  a  letter  to  Mutian,  June  11, 
1515  or  1516,  that  Erasmus  met  Hermann  Busch  and  Reuchlin  at  this  time. 
C.  Krause:  Der  Briefzvechsel  des  Mutianus  Rufus ,  1885,  no.  533,  and  K. 
Gillert:  Der  Briefzvechsel  des  Conradus  Mutianus ,  1890,  p.  171.  Cf.  Allen, 
ep.  830,  introduction,  ep.  967,  72  note,  ep.  300,  12  note. 

6  Life  by  D.  F.  Strauss,  4th  ed.,  1895;  also  English  translation.  Cf.  L.  C.,  ep. 
189;  Allen,  ep.  365.  P.  Kalkoff:  Ulrich  von  Hutten  und  die  Reformation ,  1920 


THE  RHINE 


131 

passionate,  wayward  nature,  not  without  nobility  of 
purpose,  was  something  between  an  Ishmael  and  a 
Knight  of  Christ,  a  Thraso  turned  into  a  Crusader. 
From  his  youth  he  had  dedicated  himself  to  the  causes 
of  liberty  and  of  patriotism,  always  pointing  his  sword 
and  his  mightier  pen  at  the  breast  of  some  tyrant;  first 
at  that  of  Duke  Ulrich  of  Wiirttemberg,  who  murdered 
Hutten’s  cousin  John  for  the  sake  of  John’s  wife;  then 
at  the  Dominican  inquisitors;  finally  at  the  pope  of 
Rome,  as  the  enemy  of  the  Lutheran  gospel.  From 
his  picture,  in  his  knight’s  armor  and  poet’s  crown  of 
laurel,  his  lean,  dissipated  face  looks  out  boldly,  impu¬ 
dently,  but  not  without  fire.  Quick  of  temper  as  of  wit, 
he  was  always  ready  for  a  quarrel;  nor  was  he  backward 
in  boasting  of  his  victories.  When  attacked  by  five 
French  ruffians,  he  assured  his  friends,  he  had  slain 
one  and  put  the  rest  to  flight.1  Now,  at  the  age  of 
twenty-six,  before  he  had  won  the  laureate’s  crown  of 
Germany,  he  was  captivated  by  the  scholar-wit  and 
longed  to  play  the  Alcibiades  to  the  older  man’s  Socrates.2 
Erasmus,  too,  was  so  favorably  impressed  that  he 
inserted  into  his  New  Testament  of  1516  a  note  of 
praise  for  his  young  friend.3 

The  second  meeting  of  the  two  occurred  at  Frankfort 
on  the  Main,  in  the  spring  of  1515,  while  Erasmus  was 
traveling  back  from  Basle  to  England.  He  had  visited 
the  ancient  city,  not  to  see  its  Roman  relics  and  imperial 
insignia,  but  to  attend  the  famous  book  fair  held  here 
in  March  or  April  of  each  year.  In  1515  it  had  lasted 
from  March  nth  to  March  30th.4  At  Frankfort  he 

1  Allen,  ep.  61 1.  July  30,  1517. 

*  Allen,  ep.  365;  Nichols,  ep.  351;  October  24,  1515.  Cf.  also  the  account 
of  Erasmus,  doubtless  from  Hutten’s  pen,  in  the  Epistola  Obscurorum  Virorum , 
cd.  Stokes,  i,  42. 

3  LB.  vi,  555. 

4  J.  W.  Thompson:  The  Frankfort  Book  Fair ,  1911,  p.  46.  A.  Dietz:  Zur 
Gesckichte  der  Frankfurter  Biichermesse ,  1921.  A.  Dietz:  Frankfurter  Han¬ 
dels  ge  sc  hie  hte,  1910.  The  fair  was  opened  on  the  Sunday  Oculi — four  weeks 
before  Easter — and  closed  on  the  Friday  before  Palm  Sunday.  In  1515  Palm 
Sunday  fell  on  April  1st. 


132 


ERASMUS 


also  met  John  Reuchlin,1  the  foremost  Hebrew  scholar 
of  the  day,  now  the  accused  in  one  of  the  most  notorious 
heresy  trials  in  history.  His  refusal  to  participate  in 
a  plan  of  a  converted  Jew,  named  PfefFerkorn,  to  destroy 
all  Hebrew  books  except  the  Old  Testament,  had 
exposed  him  in  1509  to  a  charge  of  heresy  at  the  hands 
of  the  Dominicans  of  Cologne.  The  leader  of  these 
“hounds  of  the  Lord”  (to  quote  the  famous  pun  on 
the  name  Dominicani  and  Domini  canes)  was  a  certain 
Hochstraten,  the  chief  inquisitor  for  Germany,  aided 
by  a  peculiar  humanist,  Ortwin  Gratius  by  name. 
Reuchlin’s  memorial,  called  the  Oculare  Speculum ,  or 
Eyeglass,  protesting  to  the  Emperor  Maximilian  against 
the  destruction  of  the  Hebrew  literature  was  fiercely 
attacked  and  publicly  burned.  An  appeal  to  Rome 
dragged  out  the  process  for  many  a  long  year.  The 
cause  celebre  excited  the  passionate  partisanship  of  all 
Europe;  the  humanists,  all  save  Ortwin,  sided  with 
Reuchlin;  the  monks  almost  to  a  man  were  against  him. 
Erasmus  naturally  sided  with  the  persecuted  scholar, 
with  whom  he  had  been  already  in  correspondence  in 

I5I4-2 

When  he  first  met  Hutten  at  Mainz  in  that  year  the 
latter  was  hotly  engaged  in  the  cause,  and  had  written 
The  Triumph  of  Reuchlin ,  which  Erasmus  advised  him 
to  suppress  as  imprudent  and  premature.3  At  this  time 
Erasmus  had  obtained  Reuchlin’s  Memorial ,  together 
with  its  condemnation  by  Hochstraten,  and  had  thor¬ 
oughly  convinced  himself  of  the  Hebrew  scholar’s  or¬ 
thodoxy,  though  he  mildly  censured  his  invective.  He 

1  Reuchlin’s  letters  have  been  edited,  and  his  life  written,  by  Geiger.  See 
also  Realencyklopadie  fur  protest  antis  che  Theologie;  Stokes,  op.  cit.,  introduction, 
Allen,  i,  p.  555.  For  Reuchlin’s  meeting,  the  only  one  with  Erasmus,  see 
Allen,  ep.  967,  72  note.  LB.  x,  1662C,  1668E.  Nichols,  ii,  181;  Allen,  ii,  p.  67; 
Brief  weeks  el  des  Mutianus  Rufus ,  no.  533;  K.  Gillert:  Briefwechsel  des  Con - 
radus  Mutianus,  p.  171.  The  letter  here  dated  June  11,  1515,  should  be  1516, 
and  is  mistaken  in  saying  “Mainz”  instead  of  “Frankfort.” 

2  Allen,  ep.  290;  Nichols,  ep.  285;  cf.  Allen,  ep.  300. 

3  It  was,  however,  printed  in  1518;  Hutteni  Opera ,  iii,  413  ff;  cf.  i ,  26. 
LB.  x,  1668DE. 


THE  RHINE 


i33 


accordingly  had  written  to  Reuchlin  from  Basle,  assur¬ 
ing  him  of  his  own  esteem,  and  telling  him  of  the 
sympathy  of  Fisher  and  of  Colet.1  On  March  1st  of 
the  following  year  he  forwarded  some  questions2  from 
Fisher  to  Reuchlin.  A  little  later  he  took  occasion,  in 
writing  to  Cardinals  Riario  and  Grimani,3  to  plead  the 
cause  of  his  eminent  friend,  whose  trial  was  then  pending 
at  Rome.  To  the  former  correspondent  he  said: 

I  do  most  earnestly  beseech  and  adjure  you,  for  the  sake  of  sound 
learning  which  Your  Eminence  is  always  wont  to  cherish,  that  that 
distinguished  man,  Doctor  John  Reuchlin,  may  enjoy  your  justice 
and  good  will  in  the  business  in  which  he  is  now  concerned.  .  .  . 
All  Germany  is  indebted  to  him,  for  he  first  aroused  in  that  country 
a  love  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  literature;  he  is  a  man  skilled  in  several 
languages  and  learned  in  various  sciences,  long  known  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  world  by  the  books  he  has  published,  and  especially  favored 
of  the  Emperor  Maximilian,  one  of  whose  councillors  he  is,  while 
among  his  fellow  citizens  he  holds  the  honorable  position  of  triumvir4 
[of  the  Swabian  League],  and  a  reputation  which  has  never  been 
soiled.  .  .  .  Therefore  to  all  good  men  who  know  him  by  his  writings, 
not  only  in  Germany  but  also  in  France  and  England,  it  appears 
most  unworthy  that  so  distinguished  a  man  should  be  harassed  by 
such  hateful  litigation,  and  that  for  a  thing  that  in  my  judgment 
is  more  trifling  than  an  ass’s  shadow,  as  the  jesting  proverb  says. 

This  letter,  together  with  the  one  to  Grimani,  was 
published  by  Froben  in  August,  1515.  Though  they 
apparently  had  little  effect  in  Rome,  for  Riario  does 
not  mention  Reuchlin  in  his  answer,  they  doubtless 
had  some  influence  in  Germany. 

Erasmus  continued  in  his  letters  to  defend  Reuchlin 
and  pay  his  respects  to  Pfefferkorn  in  such  words  as 
these  :5 6 

I  hear  that  that  pestilent  Corn,  sowed  by  some  clever  Satan, 
has  published  a  book  in  which  he  rages  against  all  the  learned  with 
impunity.  He  is  the  tool  of  those  illustrious  pillars  of  religion, 

1  Allen,  ep.  300;  Nichols,  ep.  294. 

2  Allen,  ep.  324;  Nichols,  ep.  315. 

8  Allen,  epp.  333,  334;  Nichols,  epp.  318,  319.  _ 

4  So  Erasmus.  Reuchlin  held  the  position  of  triumvir  in  the  South  German 

confederacy  known  as  the  Swabian  League  for  the  years  1502-13. 

6  To  Banisius,  November  3,  1517;  Allen,  ep.  700;  Nichols,  ep.  671. 


134 


ERASMUS 


misused  by  them  to  break  up  the  peace  of  Christendom.  I  wish 
he  were  a  Jew  all  over — and  that  his  tongue  and  both  hands  were 
circumcised  as  well  as  his  other  parts!  As  things  now  are  this  angel 
of  Satan,  taking  the  form  of  an  angel  of  light,  fights  under  our  own 
banners  against  us,  and  will  soon  betray  us,  as  Zopyrus  [by  pretend¬ 
ing  to  be  mutilated]  betrayed  Babylon  to  Darius. 

Reuchlin  received  so  many  testimonials  from  eminent 
supporters  that  he  published  them  under  the  title  of 
Letters  of  Famous  Men.  This  suggested  to  one  of  his 
most  brilliant  supporters,  Crotus  Rubeanus,  the  idea 
of  a  satire  on  his  foe  Ortwin,  in  the  form  of  a  series  of 
burlesque  Letters  of  Obscure  Men.  These  epistles  pur¬ 
ported  to  be  written  to  Ortwin  by  wretched  monks  who 
blatantly  exposed  their  atrocious  Latin,  superstition, 
bigotry,  ignorance,  and  immorality.  The  first  series  of 
letters  was  published  in  the  autumn  of  1515  by  Wolfgang 
Anxt  of  Hagenau,  and  at  once  sent  by  him  to  Erasmus, 
with  an  excuse  for  the  boldness  of  the  Obscure  Men  in 
addressing  so  great  a  personage  as  him,  with  whose 
Folly  they  feel  an  affinity.1  In  1516  Hutten  published 
a  second  edition  of  the  work,  with  a  few  letters  added; 
and  in  1517  he  wrote  a  second  series  of  the  Letters, 
distinguished  from  those  of  Crotus  by  their  greater 
virulence. 

The  j Lpistolce  Obscurorum  Virorum  had  much  popular 
success  in  raising  a  laugh  against  the  monks  through¬ 
out  Europe.  Erasmus,  however,  notwithstanding  his 
liberal  sympathies,  highly  disapproved  of  the  satire.  On 
August  1 6,  1517,  he  wrote  to  Caesarius:2 

The  Letters  of  Obscure  Men  greatly  displeased  me,  even  from  the 
beginning.  The  joke  might  amuse  if  it  had  not  become  personal. 
I  like  satire  provided  it  be  without  insult  to  anyone.  But  it  was 
right  annoying  when  in  the  second  edition  my  name  was  mixed 
up  in  it:  as  if  it  were  not  enough  to  play  the  fool  without  exciting 

1  Epistola  Obscurorum  Virorum ,  ed.  with  translation  by  F.  G.  Stokes,  1909. 
On  authorship  and  date  see  his  introduction,  and  Steiff:  Buchdruck  zu  Tubingen , 
pp.  217  f;  Bauch  and  Steiff  in  Centralblatt  fur  Bibliotheksweseny  xv,  1898,  pp. 
490  ff;  Allen,  ep.  363,  and  ii,  pp.  xix-xx. 

J  Allen,  ep.  622;  Nichols,  ii,  p.  610. 


THE  RHINE 


i35 


odium  against  me  and  thus  in  a  great  measure  destroying  the  fruit 
obtained  by  so  much  laborious  study.  And  as  if  that  had  been 
deemed  insufficient,  a  second  book,  like  the  first,  has  made  its  appear¬ 
ance,  in  which  there  is  frequent  mention  of  persons  to  whom  I  am 
quite  sure  mockery  of  this  kind  is  anything  but  agreeable. 

To  the  same  correspondent  he  wrote  on  April  5th 
of  the  following  year  that  he  wished  the  book  had  never 
been  published  or  that,  if  published,  it  had  appeared 
under  a  different  title.  He  sarcastically  added  that  the 
satire  was  so  perfect  that  it  was  read  at  Louvain  as  if 
it  were  a  serious  defence  of  the  monks.  One  of  the  pro¬ 
fessors,  who  hated  Reuchlin  and  loved  Hochstraten, 
even  bought  twenty  copies  as  presents  to  his  friends!1 
Again,  he  says  that  he  disapproves  of  the  slanders 
contained  in  the  book,  not  of  the  jokes.2 

With  Reuchlin  he  continued  to  keep  up  a  friendly 
correspondence  and  he  also  wrote,  with  unwonted  bold¬ 
ness,  to  both  Hochstraten  and  Ortwin,  urging  moder¬ 
ation.  He  observed  that  there  is  no  need  of  exciting 
hatred  against  the  Jews,  “for  if  to  hate  Jews  be  Chris¬ 
tian,  we  are  Christian  enough  already.”  He  protested 
that  he  himself  was  not  to  be  confounded  with  Reuchlin, 
for  he  never  cared  for  the  Cabbala,  but  that  he  did  not 
think  it  necessary  to  “mix  heaven  and  earth  to  make 
such  a  melodrama.”3  Gratius  he  begged  to  devote  him¬ 
self  rather  to  study  than  to  quarrels  worthy  neither  of  a 
scholar  nor  of  a  Christian. 

When  the  Lutheran  affair  began  to  make  Erasmus 
more  cautious  he  published,  in  an  edition  of  the  Col¬ 
loquies,  a  signed  Protest  against  seditious  Calumnies ,4 
calling  to  account  the  indiscreet  persons  who  had,  with¬ 
out  his  consent,  and,  as  he  believed,  without  the  consent 
of  Reuchlin,  published  their  private  correspondence. 


1  To  Caesarius,  April  5,  1518;  Allen,  ep.  808. 

2  To  Neuenaar,  August  25,  1517;  Allen,  ep.  636. 

3“Tantas  excitare  tragcedias,”  a  favorite  phrase  of  Erasmus.  Letter  to 
Hochstraten,  August  11,  1519,  Allen,  ep.  1006.  Letter  to  Gratius,  Allen,  ep. 
1022.  The  text  was  much  mutilated,  but  has  been  restored  by  Allen. 

4  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  Colloquia ,  i,  pp.  59,  65. 


ERASMUS 


136 

“ I  am  not  a  Reuchlinist,”  he  declared,  “nor  yet  a 
partisan  of  any  human  faction.  I  am  a  Christian  and 
recognize  Christians  and  not  Erasmians  or  Reuchlinists.” 
Nevertheless,  his  admiration  for  the  great  scholar  in¬ 
duced  him,  when  the  latter  died,  in  June,  1522,  to  write 
an  Apotheosis  of  Reuchlin ,  for  insertion  in  the  later 
editions  of  the  Colloquies.1 

From  this  long  digression  let  us  return  to  accompany 
the  great  man  on  his  triumphal  progress  through  Ger¬ 
many  in  the  summer  of  1514.  From  Mainz,  probably 
accompanied  by  Hutten,  he  ascended  the  Rhine  to 
Strassburg,  an  important  German  Imperial  Free  Town, 
with  which  Erasmus  was  immensely  pleased. 

There  [he  wrote]  I  have  seen  old  men  not  morose,  nobles  without 
arrogance,  magistrates  without  pride,  citizens  ornamented  with  the 
virtues  of  famous  heroes,  a  vast  populace  without  tumults.  In 
short,  I  saw  a  monarchy  without  tyranny,  an  aristocracy  free  from 
faction,  a  democracy  without  turbulence,  wealth  without  wantonness, 
prosperity  without  insolence.2 

He  was  made  particularly  happy  by  the  ovation  given 
him  by  the  circle  of  humanists.  Their  leader,  perhaps, 
was  Jacob  Wimpfeling,3  a  Catholic  Reformer  who  had 
written  on  theology,  but  had  also  cultivated  letters. 
He  wrote  an  essay  glorifying  Germany,  and  later  took 
part  against  Luther.  Sebastian  Brant,  whose  Ship  of 
Fools  Erasmus  knew,  was  now  the  secretary  of  the 
Strassburg  government,  and  Erasmus  met  him4  either 
at  this  time  or  at  Antwerp  in  1 520.  Another  statesman 
and  humanist,  noted  for  the  school  he  founded,  was 
John  Sturm. 

One  of  the  glories  of  Strassburg,  the  cathedral,  with 
a  spire  465  feet  high,  was  already  ancient  in  the  sixteenth 

1  De  incomparabili  heroe  Johanne  Reuchlino  in  divorum  numerum  relato. 
LB.  i,  689  ff. 

2  Allen,  ep.  305;  Nichols,  ep.  298.  To  Wimpfeling,  September  21,  1514. 

3  Allen,  epp.  302,  305;  Nichols,  epp.  295,  298.  C.  Schmidt:  Histoire 
litteraire  d’  Alsace,  2  vols.  1879.  Revue  Historique,  112,  p.  247. 

4  Supra,  p.  1 19;  Allen,  ep.  1132,  introduction;  P.  Kalkoff  in  Repertorium 
fur  Kunstwissenschaft,  xxviii,  1905,  pp.  474-485. 


THE  RHINE 


i37 


century.  On  one  occasion,  whether  now  or  at  a  later 
visit  is  not  known,  Erasmus  was  taken  over  it  by  some 
of  its  canons,  perhaps  Gerbel  and  Gebweiler.  The 
canons  were  boasting  that  no  one  could  be  admitted  to 
their  chapter  unless  he  had  at  least  fourteen  noble 
ancestors  on  his  father’s  side,  and  as  many  on  his 
mother’s.  They  were  somewhat  abashed  when,  with 
characteristic  wit  and  demure  sweetness,  their  guest 
remarked:  “Then  Christ  himself  could  not  have  been 
received  into  this  chapter  unless  he  got  a  dispensa¬ 
tion  from  this  rule.”  They  took  the  lesson  to  heart, 
or  at  least  they  remembered  the  saying  many  years 
afterward.1 

The  next  stop,  in  this  progress  of  the  summer  of  1514, 
was  made  at  Schlettstadt,  a  small  town  of  only  4,000 
to  5,000  inhabitants,  but  boasting  a  few  humanists  of 
note.2  The  greatest  of  them  was  Beatus  Rhenanus3 
(as  Beat  Bild  of  Rheinau  preferred  to  be  called)  now 
living  at  Basle,  but  occasionally  to  be  found  at  his 
native  place  or  at  Strassburg.  His  historical  work  was 
the  most  noteworthy  on  the  critical  side  of  any  pro¬ 
duced  by  his  German  generation.  In  the  sifting  of 
sources  he  was  as  cool,  as  fine,  and  as  successful  as  his 
friend  Erasmus,  from  whom  he  learned  much.  He  was 
a  historian  first,  a  patriot,  or  a  partisan,  secondarily, 
if  at  all.  Another  humanist  of  Schlettstadt,  was  the 
schoolmaster  John  Sapidus,4  who  accompanied  the 
illustrious  visitor  to  Basle. 


1  It  was  told  to  John  Christopher,  Freiherr  von  Zimmern,  who  was  con¬ 
secrated  as  canon  on  September  29,  1531.  Das  Zimmersche  Chronik ,  hg.  von 
K.  A.  Barack,  2d  ed.,  1881,  iii,  129. 

2  J.  Geny:  Die  Reichstadt  Schlettstadt  und  ihr  Anteil  an  den  social-politischen 
und  religiosen  B etc e gun  gen  der  Jahre  1490-1536.  ( Erlauterungen  und  Ergdnz- 
ungen  zu  Janssens  Geschichte  des  Deutschen  Folkes,  Band  I),  1900. 

3  Briefwechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus ,  hg.  von  A.  Horawitz  und  K.  Hartfelder, 
1886,  with  life  by  his  friend  Sturm.  Cf.  also  Historische  Jahrbiicher ,  xxviii, 
714-716;  Zeitschriftfiir  die  Geschichte  des  Oberrheins ,  Bande  29,  3 1  (1914,  1916). 
On  his  historical  work,  E.  Fueter:  Geschichte  der  neueren  Historiographies  191 1, 
190  ff.  G.  Knod:  Aus  der  Bibliothek  des  Beatus  Rhenanus ,  1889. 

4  LB.  i,  1223;  Nichols,  ii,  p.  155. 


ERASMUS 


138 

In  Basle1  Erasmus  spent  many  years  of  his  life,  most  of 
the  time  from  the  middle  of  1514  to  the  middle  of  1516, 
again  from  1521  to  1529,  and  the  year  before  his  death 
C1 53 5-36).  Though  a  small  town,  it  was  prosperous, 
cultured,  and  pretty.  After  a  good  deal  of  negotiation 
it  had  thrown  off  its  obligations  to  the  Hapsburgs  and 
had  been  received  into  the  Swiss  Confederacy  (1501-03). 
It  was  described  by  Beatus  Rhenanus,  with  a  pun  on 
the  name,  as  “a  royal  residence,  the  queen  of  cities,” 
with  pleasant,  even  magnificent  houses,  clean  streets, 
gay  gardens,  delightful  views,  polite  citizens,  and  a  mild 
climate.  The  university,2  founded  in  1460,  had  a  good 
name,  even  before  (Ecolampadius  and  Grynaeus  raised 
it  to  European  celebrity.  Memories  of  the  Council  of 
Basle  (1431-48)  animated  the  place  with  a  sense  of 
freedom  and  reform.  Famous  writers  like  Brant  and 
artists  like  Durer  and  Holbein  had  spent,  or  were  spend¬ 
ing,  parts  of  their  lives  here.  Most  of  all,  Basle  was 
famous  for  its  printers.3  John  Amerbach  had  set  up 
his  press  in  1475,  and  in  1513  had  entered  into  a  partner¬ 
ship  with  the  still  more  famous  John  Froben.  The 
government  of  the  town  was  republican;  the  gilds  had 
just  thrown  off  the  old  aristocracy  of  nobles,  and  further 
asserted  their  power  in  1516.4  A  still  more  democratic 
revolution  was  to  take  place  with  the  subsequent 
introduction  of  the  Reformation. 

During  much  of  his  life  at  Basle,  Erasmus  dwelt  in 

1  On  Basle:  Basel ,  von  Martin  Wackernagel,  1912.  Rudolph  Wackernagel: 
Geschichte  der  Stadt  Basel ,  Band  II,  Teil  II,  1916.  Die  Stadt  Basel  und  Ihre 
Umgebung ,  hg.  von  Verkehrsverein  der  Stadt  Basel,  1898.  R.  Thommen: 
Urkundenbuch  der  Stadt  Basel,  Bande  9,  10,  1905,  1908.  P.  S.  Allen:  Age  of 
Erasmus ,  1914,  p.  146.  E.  Doumergue:  Vie  de  Calvin ,  i,  1899,  pp.  471  ff. 
A.  Heusler:  Geschichte  der  Stadt  Basel?  1918.  A  series  of  pictures  of  Basel  in 
1618  by  Merian  in  the  Cornell  library. 

2  W.  Fischer:  Geschichte  der  Universitat  Basel,  1460-1529.  i860. 

3  Stockmeyer  und  Reber:  Beiirage  zur  Basler  Buchdrucker geschichte.  1870. 

4  On  March  8,  1515,  while  Erasmus  was  there,  the  old  patricians  agreed  that 
all  offices  should  be  open  to  members  of  the  gilds;  on  St.  John’s  Day 
(December  27),  1516,  the  gilds  elected  their  first  burgomaster,  James  Meier. 
When  the  bishop  tried  to  interfere  the  Town  Council,  on  March  12,  1521, 
declared  the  city  free  from  the  bishop’s  jurisdiction.  Heusler,  op.  cit .,  p.  95. 


THE  RHINE 


i39 


a  small  house  called  Zur  Luft — names  then  taking  the 
place  of  numbers — in  the  Little-Tree  Alley  (Baumlein 
Gasse).  Hating  stoves  and  close  rooms  as  he  did, 
Erasmus  perhaps  selected  it  for  the  good  air  promised 
by  its  name,  though  in  fact  it  does  not  look  very  airy. 
Some  of  the  old  utensils  used  by  Erasmus  are  still 
preserved;  among  them  a  knife  and  fork  with  handles 
chased  with  designs  of  Adam  and  Eve,  possibly  made 
by  Holbein. 

As  the  publishing  house  of  Froben  was  the  magnet 
attracting  Erasmus  to  Basle,  it  is  natural  that  he 
should  soon  be  introduced  to  the  famous  printer  in  a 
way  pleasantly  described  by  himself:1 

I  delivered  to  Froben  a  letter  from  Erasmus,  adding  that  he  was 
my  intimate  friend,  and  had  intrusted  me  with  the  business  of 
publishing  his  lucubrations,  so  that  whatever  I  did  would  stand 
good  as  done  by  Erasmus  himself.  At  last  I  added  that  I  was  so 
like  him  that  whoever  saw  me  saw  Erasmus.  He  then  broke  into  a 
laugh  as  he  detected  the  hoax. 

A  warm  friendship  sprung  up  between  the  two. 
Erasmus  thus  spoke  of  his  printer,  just  after  his  death 
in  1527:2 

Who  would  not  love  such  a  nature?  He  was  to  his  friends  the 
one  best  friend,  so  simple  and  sincere  that  even  if  he  had  wished  to 
pretend  or  conceal  anything  he  could  not  have  done  it,  so  repugnant 
was  it  to  his  nature.  He  was  so  ready  and  eager  to  help  everyone 
that  he  was  glad  to  be  of  service  even  to  the  unworthy,  and  thus 
became  a  fit  prey  to  thieves  and  swindlers.  He  was  as  pleased 
to  get  back  money  stolen  or  lent  to  a  fraudulent  debtor  as  others 
are  with  an  unexpected  fortune.  His  incorruptible  honor  deserved 
the  saying:  “He  was  a  man  you  could  trust  to  play  fair  in  the  dark." 
Incapable  of  fraud  himself,  he  could  never  see  it  in  others,  though 
he  was  not  seldom  deceived.  He  could  no  more  imagine  the  disease 
of  envy  than  a  man  born  blind  can  understand  colors.  He  pardoned 
even  serious  offenses  before  he  asked  who  had  committed  them. 
He  could  never  remember  an  injury  nor  forget  the  smallest  service. 
And  here,  in  my  judgment,  his  goodness  was  excessive,  for  a  wise 
father  of  a  family.  I  used  to  advise  him  sometimes  that,  while  con- 

1  Allen,  ep.  305;  Nichols,  ep.  298.  On  Froben,  Allen,  ii,  250. 

2  Lond.  xxiii,  9.  End  of  October,  1527.  LB.  iii,  col.  1053. 


140 


ERASMUS 


tinuing  to  be  true  to  his  sincere  friends,  he  should  expend  only  kind 
words  cn  imposters  who  both  cheated  and  laughed  at  him.  He  smiled 
gently,  but  I  told  my  tale  to  a  deaf  man.  The  frankness  of  his 
nature  was  too  much  for  all  warnings.  What  snares  did  he  not 
spread  for  me,  what  excuses  did  he  not  hunt  up  to  force  a  gift  on 
me?  I  never  saw  him  happier  than  when,  by  artifice  or  importunity, 
he  succeeded  in  getting  me  to  take  something.  Against  his  artifices 
I  needed  my  utmost  caution,  and  all  my  skill  in  rhetoric,  to  devise 
some  plausible  reason  refusing  wThat  he  offered,  without  hurting 
him,  for  I  could  not  bear  to  see  him  sad.  If  by  chance  my  servants 
had  bought  cloth  for  my  clothes,  he  would  ferret  out  and  pay  the 
bill  before  I  suspected  it,  and  no  entreaty  of  mine  could  make  him 
take  the  money  again.  So,  if  I  wanted  to  save  him  from  loss,  I 
had  need  of  singular  arts,  and  there  was  between  us  a  contest  quite 
different  from  the  common  usage  of  the  vulgar,  where  one  tries 
to  get  as  much  and  the  other  to  give  as  little  as  possible.  I  could 
never  entirely  avoid  his  gifts,  but  that  I  made  a  most  moderate 
use  of  his  kindness  all  his  family  will,  I  think,  bear  me  witness. 
Whatever  he  did  for  me  he  did  for  love  of  learning.  Since  he 
seemed  born  to  honor,  to  promote  and  to  embellish  learning,  and 
spared  no  labor  or  care,  thinking  it  rewTard  enough  if  a  good  author 
were  put  into  the  hands  of  the  public  in  worthy  form,  how  could 
I  take  advantage  of  a  man  like  this? 

Erasmus’s  life  at  Basle  was  very  pleasant.  To  one 
friend  he  wrote  that  he  could  not  express  how  much  he 
liked  both  the  climate  and  the  hearty,  friendly  people.1 
At  times  his  work  seemed  excessive,  so  that  he  spoke  of 
Basle  as  a  prison  in  which  he  had  done  six  years’  work 
in  eight  months.2  To  his  dear  Bruno  Amerbach  he 
wrote:  “What  is  our  mill  doing?  How  goes  it  in  the 
cave  of  Tryphon?  Have  you  been  lucky  enough  to 
escape  and  vindicate  your  liberty?”3 

An  extremely  agreeable  picture  of  his  relations  with 
the  younger  men  around  him  is  given  in  a  letter  from 
Henry  Glarean,  who  said  to  him:  “Besides  innumerable 
other  benefits  you  conferred  on  me  the  chief  is  this, 
that  you  taught  me  to  know  Christ,  and  not  only  to 
know,  but  to  imitate,  to  reverence,  and  to  love  him.”4 

1  Allen,  ep.  412;  Nichols,  ep.  399. 

2  Allen,  ep.  410;  Nichols,  ep.  397. 

3  Allen,  ep.  439.  July  13,  1516. 

4  Allen,  ep.  463.  September  5,  1516. 


THE  RHINE 


141 

This  is  acceptable  evidence  of  the  moral  influence 
exercised  by  Erasmus  and  of  the  rectitude  of  his  own 
life.  He  himself,  however,  did  not  maintain  the  lofty, 
transcendental  position  that  virtue  is  its  own  reward, 
but  thought  that,  though  virtue  was  the  chief  good,  a 
man  could  not  be  really  happy  without  other  goods 
as  well.1 

Erasmus  never  lived  eight  consecutive  years  in  any 
one  town,  and  even  while  he  kept  his  head-quarters  at 
Basle  he  continued  to  make  frequent  journeys  back 
and  forth  to  the  Netherlands.  Traveling  was  not  so 
easy  or  rapid  then  as  it  is  now.  Boats  and  horses  were, 
of  course,  the  only  means  of  conveyance.  Sometimes 
the  Rhine  was  so  swollen  with  floods  that  the  trip  was 
more  like  swimming  than  riding;2  at  other  times  the 
roads  were  so  muddy  that  the  horses  were  “almost 
shipwrecked.”3  There  were  other  dangers  in  travel 
than  those  supplied  by  the  weather.  Of  these  the  most 
often  mentioned  were  the  plagues  and  the  robbers.4 
Thus  on  April  23,  1518,  he  wrote  Colet:5 

I  am  girt  up  for  a  journey  perilous  on  account  of  the  disbanded 
scoundrels  and  marauders  who  have  gathered  by  thousands  to  fall 
upon  others.  This  is  the  cruel  clemency  of  princes,  to  spare  impious 
parricides  and  sacrilegious  criminals,  but  not  their  own  subjects. 

It  was  on  these  frequent  journeys  that  Erasmus 
received  the  unpleasant  impression  of  German  inns, 
humorously  recorded  in  the  Colloquies .6  We  know  from 
other  sources  that  much  of  what  he  says  about  these 
was  not  exaggerated.  In  one  large  reception  room  the 

1  Series  of  letters  to  and  from  Cardinal  William  Croy,  c.  May,  1519.  Allen, 
epp.  957>  958,  959- 

2  Allen,  ep.  348;  Nichols,  ep.  336.  August,  1515.  On  this  occasion,  Erasmus 
wrote  an  epigram  on  the  flood.  Allen,  ii,  124. 

3  Allen,  ep.  1169,  December  13,  1520. 

4  Allen,  ep.  794. 

6  Allen,  ep.  825. 

6  Diversoria,  LB.  i,  715-718.  See  A.  Schultz:  Das  hduslichc  Leben  der 
europaischen  Kulturoblker  vom  Mittelalter  bis  zur  zweiten  Hdlfte  des  i8en 
Jahrhundert,  1903,  pp.  93,  395  f;  E.  S.  Bates:  Touring  in  1600,  1911,  pp. 
240  ff. 


142 


ERASMUS 


guests  gathered  to  dry  their  steaming  clothes  before  a 
stove,  filling  the  place  with  smells  and  sometimes  with 
vermin.  After  an  unappetizing  meal  of  bread,  sausage, 
pudding,  and  wine  or  beer,  the  guest  would  be  led  to  a 
bedroom  already  occupied  by  other  travelers  of  both 
sexes,  lucky  if  he  did  not  have  to  share  his  bed  with  a 
strange  man.  When,  in  1523,  Erasmus  compared  the 
luxury  of  French  inns  with  the  coarse  entertainment 
provided  by  the  German  hostelries,  the  contrast  may 
have  been  partly  due  to  the  higher  standards  he  had 
now  acquired  in  place  of  those  which  he  held  when,  as 
a  younger  man,  he  had  first  traveled  through  the  rich 
plains  of  Southern  France.  But  let  us  hear  what  he 
has  to  say: 

No  one  welcomes  the  newcomer,  lest  they  should  seem  to  solicit 
guests,  for  to  do  so  would  appear  to  them  mean  and  low  and  beneath 
the  high-mightiness  of  the  German  character.  When  you  have 
been  shouting  for  a  long  time  some  one  puts  his  head,  like  a  tortoise 
looking  from  its  shell,  out  of  the  hot-air  shafts1  in  which  they  live 
almost  until  midsummer.  You  must  ask  if  you  may  stay  and  if  he 
doesn’t  say  “no”  you  conclude  that  you  may  have  a  place.  You 
ask  where  the  stables  are  and  he  shows  you  with  a  motion  of  his 
hand,  for  you  may  take  care  of  your  horse  as  best  you  can  without 
a  servant  to  help  you.  In  the  more  famous  inns  a  man  shows  you 
to  the  stables  and  carefully  points  out  the  worst  stall  for  your  horse, 
for  they  keep  the  better  places  for  later  arrivals,  especially  for  the 
nobility.  If  you  complain,  the  first  thing  you  hear  is,  “If  you  don’t 
like  it  here,  go  to  another  inn.”  In  the  cities  it  is  all  you  can  do  to 
get  a  little  hay,  for  which  you  have  to  pay  as  much  as  for  oats. 
When  you  have  cared  for  your  horse  you  go  to  the  common  sweating- 
room,2  filled  with  footwear,  baggage,  and  mud,  pull  off  your  boots, 
put  on  your  slippers,  change  your  shirt  if  you  like,  and  dry  yourself 
and  your  clothes,  dripping  with  rain,  by  the  tile  stove.  If  you  wash 
your  hands,  the  water  is  generally  so  filthy  that  you  have  to  wash 
away  the  first  ablution.  .  .  .  They  crowd  eighty  or  ninety  persons 
into  that  sweating-room,  footmen  and  horsemen,  merchants,  sailors, 
carters,  farmers,  women  and  children,  sick  and  well.  .  .  .  One  is 
combing  his  hair,  another  wiping  off  sweat,  another  cleaning  his 
boots  and  legwear,  another  smells  of  garlic.  Amid  a  confusion  of 

1  “iEstuarium,”  literally  “hot-air  shaft,”  a  sarcastic  name  for  the  overheated 
room  detested  by  Erasmus. 

1  “Hypocaustum,”  a  sarcastic  name  for  the  heated  reception  room. 


THE  RHINE 


i43 


men  and  tongues  such  as  was  once  seen  at  Babel  they  stare  at  a 
foreigner  like  a  new  kind  of  animal  from  Africa.  .  .  .  Meantime 
it  is  a  crime  to  ask  for  anything,  for  they  will  not  serve  anything 
until  late  in  the  evening,  when  they  expect  no  more  arrivals.  Finally 
a  hoary,  bald,  wrinkled,  dirty  old  waiter  appears  .  .  .  spreads  the 
table,  and  gives  each  guest  a  wooden  bowl,  a  wooden  spoon,  a  glass 
cup,  and  some  bread,  which  everyone  munches  until  the  soup  is 
ready — that  is,  for  about  an  hour. 

If  anyone  tried  to  air  the  room  by  opening  a  window, 
all  the  rest  would  shout,  “Shut  it!  Shut  it!”  and  if 
he  replied  that  he  could  not  endure  the  heat,  he  was 
summarily  invited  to  go  to  another  inn.  Finally,  the 
amusements  of  the  guests  were  unpleasant: 

Frequently  clowns  mix  with  the  company  and,  though  they  are 
the  most  detestable  of  men,  you  can  hardly  believe  how  much  the 
Germans  delight  in  them.1  With  their  singing,  chattering,  clamor, 
jumping  and  blows,  they  make  the  hot  room  almost  collapse  and  you 
can’t  hear  anyone  speak. 

If  these  were  the  ordinary  experiences  of  a  traveler, 
sometimes  they  were  much  worse.  The  trip  from 
Basle  to  Louvain  in  September,  1518,  is  thus  vividly 
painted  :2 

% 

Dear  Beatus:  Learn  the  whole  tragicomedy  of  my  journey. 
As  you  know,  I  was  unwell  when  I  left  Basle,  having  not  yet  returned 
into  Heaven’s  grace  since  I  had  so  long  led  a  sedentary  life  under 
stress  of  endless  labor.  The  boat  trip  was  not  unpleasant  except 
that  the  noonday  sun  became  trying.  At  Breisach  we  lunched 
worse  than  you  can  imagine — the  smell  stifling  and  the  flies  worse 
than  the  smell.  We  sat  at  table  half  an  hour  before  they  brought 
us  anything  to  eat,  and  when  they  did  it  was  only  dirty  soup,  scraps, 
and  salted  raw  meat,3  all  very  nauseous.  I  did  not  go  into  their 
hencoop,4  for  I  had  a  slight  fever.  He  who  tended  me  told  me  a 
fine  tale,  that  the  Franciscan  theologian  with  whom  I  had  had  a 

1  Albert  Diirer  speaks  of  the  “rare,  precious  mummers”  he  saw  at  a  banquet 
in  carnival  time,  1521.  Schriftlicher  Nachlass ,  p.  80. 

2  Erasmus  to  Beatus  Rhenanus,  Louvain,  c.  October  15,  1518;  Allen,  ep. 
867.  Allen  iii,  392,  gives  the  exact  itinerary. 

*  Raw  ham  and  raw  salmon,  smoked,  are  considered  delicacies  in  Germany 
now. 

4  Another  slighting  name  for  the  reception  room. 


144 


ERASMUS 


disputation  about  “hsecceities”1  had  pawned  some  communion 
vessels  as  his  own!  0  Scotist  subtilty!  Toward  night  we  were 
turned  out  into  a  cold  village  the  name  of  which  I  was  not  able  to 
find  out,  nor,  had  I  done  so,  should  I  wish  to  publish  it.  There  I 
almost  died.  In  one  oven,  not  large,  at  almost  ten  o’clock  more 
than  sixty  of  us  dined,  such  a  promiscuous  aggregation!  As  they 
became  heated  with  wine,  what  a  stink  and  what  a  noise!  But  we 
all  had  to  sit  still  until  the  clock  gave  the  signal  to  rise. 

We  were  wakened  early  by  the  clamor  of  the  sailors.  I  embarked 
hungry  without  having  slept.  We  got  to  Strassburg  before  lunch, 
about  nine.  There  we  were  better  received,  especially  as  Schiirer 
furnished  the  wine.  A  part  of  the  literary  fellowship  was  already 
there  and  soon  all  came  to  greet  me,  none  more  affectionately  than 
Gerbel.  .  .  . 

Thence  we  struggled  on  to  Spires  on  horseback,  seeing  nothing 
of  the  cloud  of  war  with  which  rumor  had  frightened  us.  My  English 
horse  almost  foundered  and  hardly  got  to  Spires  because  a  rascally 
blacksmith  had  so  maltreated  him  by  burning  the  frogs  of  two  of 
his  feet  with  a  hot  iron.  At  Spires  I  furtively  withdrew  and  betook 
myself  to  my  neighbor  Matermus.  The  learned  and  humane  dean 
[Truchses]  entertained  us  kindly  for  two  days.  By  chance  we  found 
Hermann  Busch  there. 

Thence  by  wagon  I  went  to  Worms,  thence  to  Mainz  .  .  .  where 
I  stayed  not  at  the  inn  but  at  the  house  of  a  canon.  When  we  left 
he  took  us  to  the  boat.  The  voyage  was,  on  account  of  the  fair 
weather,  not  disagreeable  except  for  its  length  and  the  smell  of  the 
horses.  .  .  .  When  we  came  to  Boppard  and  were  walking  on  the 
shore  while  the  boat  was  being  searched,  some  one  pointed  me  out 
to  the  toll-collector,  saying,  “  That  is  he.”2  The  collector’s  name, 
if  I  mistake  not,  is  Christopher  Eschenfelder.  It  is  incredible  how 
the  man  jumped  with  joy.  He  took  us  to  his  house,  where  among 
his  receipts  we  saw  the  works  of  Erasmus.  He  declared  that  he 
was  happy,  called  his  children,  his  wife,  and  all  his  friends.  In 
the  meantime  he  sent  two  bottles  of  wine  to  the  sailors,  who  begged 
for  it,  and  when  they  clamored  for  more  sent  them  more  bottles 
and  promised  he  would  remit  the  toll  to  him  who  had  brought  so 
great  a  man.  .  .  . 

1  “Haecceitas”  is  a  word  used  by  Duns  Scotus,  like  “quidditas.”  It  means 
“thisness,”  or  “the  form  of  individuality  calculated  to  yield  the  absolute 
certainty  of  real  actuality,”  says  M.  Heidegger:  Die  Kategorien  und  Bedeu- 
tungslehre  des  Duns  Scotus ,  1916,  p.  67  f;  cf.  also  p.  12,  which  speaks  of  it  as 
indicating  “a  greater  and  finer  nearness  to  real  life.”  By  Erasmus  of  course 
used  sarcastically,  implying  that  this  Scotist  was  a  little  too  practical.  Erasmus 
spoke  of  the  words  “haecceitates,  quidditates,”  as  portentous  words  recently 
invented,  in  the  Moria,  LB.  iv,  463 A,  465 B. 

2  Greek. 


THE  RHINE 


i4S 


Having  passed  through  Coblenz  and  Bonn  we  arrived  at  Cologne 
on  Sunday  morning  before  six,  in  bad  weather.  Having  gone  to 
the  inn1  I  ordered  the  servants  to  prepare  a  wagon  and  have  food 
ready  at  ten.  I  heard  mass.  Lunch  was  late.  The  wagon  was  not 
forthcoming.  I  tried  to  get  a  horse,  for  mine  were  useless.  Nothing 
succeeded.  I  saw  what  they  were  about;  they  were  trying  to  force 
us  to  stay.  Immediately  I  ordered  my  servants  to  saddle  the  horses. 
I  had  one  box  put  on  a  horse,  and  left  another  box  with  my  host. 
Then  with  my  lame  horse  I  pushed  on  to  the  castle  of  the  Count 
of  Neuenaar,  a  journey  of  about  five  hours.  I  spent  five  days  with 
him  at  Bedburg  in  such  tranquillity  and  leisure  that  I  got  through 
with  a  good  part  of  the  revision  of  the  New  Testament.  .  .  . 

From  this  point  the  trip  commences  to  be  a  tragedy. 
Erasmus  departs  from  Bedburg  in  a  terrific  storm.  The 
wagon  is  so  rough  on  the  stony  road  that  he  prefers 
even  the  lame  horse.  At  Aix  he  is  entertained  by  a 
canon  and  makes  himself  sick  by  eating  disgusting  raw 
fish,  so  that  he  is  obliged  to  force  himself  to  vomit  by 
sticking  his  finger  down  his  throat.  Ulcers  appear  on 
his  thighs  and  are  made  worse  by  riding.  When  he 
reaches  Tongres  he  faints,  but  insists  upon  being  carried 
on,  though  in  terrible  pain,  to  Louvain.  There  he  is 
unable  to  get  any  physician  to  attend  him,  as  they  all 
believe  he  has  the  plague.  Angry  with  them,  he  com¬ 
mends  himself  to  Christ,  eats  nothing  but  eggs  beaten 
in  wine;  while  recovering,  he  works  doggedly  on  the 
New  Testament.  His  letters  at  this  time  are  full  of 
the  most  minute  and  painful  descriptions  of  his  symp¬ 
toms,  which  indicate  that  he  really  had  an  attack  of  the 
disease  now  known  as  the  bubonic  plague,  then  endemic 
and  frequently  epidemic  in  Europe.2 

During  these  years  Erasmus  was  in  correspondence 
with  a  man  of  some  note  in  his  day,  Willibald  Pirck- 
heimer,  of  Nuremberg.  This  patrician  had  been  born 
at  Eichstadt  in  1470,  and  given,  by  his  wealthy  father, 

1  According  to  a  letter  of  Adolph  Eichholz  to  Erasmus,  dated  Cologne, 
October  6,  1518,  the  latter,  on  passing  through  that  city,  had  stopped  at  the 
White  Horse  Inn.  Allen,  866. 

*  See  article  on  the  Plague  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannicay  nth  edition, 
1910-n. 


ERASMUS 


146 

an  exceptional  education,  including  a  seven  years’  visit 
to  Italy  (1490-97),  where  he  studied  Greek  at  the 
universities  of  Padua  and  Pavia.  Returning  to  Nurem¬ 
berg,  he  had  been  soon  made  Town  Councilor,  and, 
after  attracting  the  attention  of  the  Emperor  Maxi¬ 
milian,  appointed  Imperial  Councilor.  He  published 
a  good  deal,  including  translations  of  Plato.  In  1504  he 
was  left  a  widower  with  five  daughters,  whom  he  made 
as  learned  as  were  those  of  Sir  Thomas  More.  His 
wealth  and  position  enabled  him  to  patronize  men  of 
talent,  among  whom  first  and  foremost  was  the  painter, 
Albert  Diirer.  A  number  of  letters  between  the  two,  writ¬ 
ten  during  the  year  1506  when  the  latter  was  at  Venice, 
have  survived,1  and  so  have  two  portraits  of  Pirckheimer 
by  the  famous  artist.  Comparing  the  drawing  of  1 503 
with  the  engraving  of  1 524, we  note  a  remarkable  degener¬ 
ation  in  the  character  of  the  face,2  a  philosopher  turned 
into  a  swine  by  drinking  Circe’s  cup  of  sensuality. 

Quite  naturally  Pirckheimer  became  interested  in  the 
author  of  the  Adages  and  Folly ,  and  in  December,  1514, 
he  wrote  his  friend,  Beatus  Rhenanus,  asking  for  an 
introduction.3  Receiving  this  immediately,  he  started 
a  correspondence  with  Erasmus  which  lasted  for  the 
rest  of  his  life.  In  1515  Erasmus  commended  to  his 
care  the  sister  of  the  gentleman  to  whom  he  had  dedicated 
the  Enchiridiony  and  at  his  death  he  wrote  an  encomium 
in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  Duke  George.4 

The  Nuremberg  councilor  seems  to  have  acted  as  an 
intermediary  in  getting  for  Erasmus  a  call  to  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Leipzig  early  in  1 5 16.5  The  humanist  was 

1  Durer s  Schriftlicher  Nachlass ,  1908,  pp.  120-150.  Doctor  Reicke  and 

Doctor  Relmann  have  undertaken  to  edit  Pirckheimer’s  correspondence.  For 
Pirckheimer’s  life,  Realencyklopadie ,  Allen,  ii,  p.  40.  \ 

2  The  drawing,  in  Berlin,  published  in  Drivers  Schriftlicher  Nachlass ,  p.  120. 
The  engraving  in  Klassiker  der  Kunst ,  Drirer ,  1908,  p.  160. 

•Allen,  ep.  322,  Pirckheimer  to  Rhenanus.  December  9,  1514.  Cf.  Brief- 
wechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus ,  no.  422  (autumn,  1513). 

4  May  15,  1531,  Lond.  xxvi,  33;  LB.  ep.  1187. 

6  Allen,  ep.  527.  A  letter  without  date  in  the  original,  inclosing  the  proposi¬ 
tion  from  Emser,  rector  of  the  university.  Dr.  Allen  places  this  letter  in  1517, 


THE  RHINE 


i47 


then  unable  to  accept,  but  the  plan  was  brought  up 
again  in  1520,  by  which  date  Erasmus  had  become 
friendly  with  Duke  George  of  Albertine  Saxony,  whose 
capital  Leipzig  was.  In  the  spring  of  1516  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Ingolstadt  made  a  flattering  but  vain  attempt 
to  secure  the  services  of  the  noted  scholar.1 

Other  honors  came  thick  and  fast.  Not  to  mention 
expectations  of  preferment  in  France  and  a  canonry  at 
Tournay,  the  gift  of  which  was  disputed  between  the 
French  and  English  governments,  Erasmus  in  1515  was 
made  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council  of  Prince  Charles, 
soon  to  become  king  of  Spain  and  afterward  emperor.2 
Four  years  later  the  Burgundian  Chancellor,  John  le 
Sauvage,  tried  to  get  Erasmus  to  supervise  the  studies 
of  Charles’s  younger  brother,  Prince  Ferdinand,  then 
in  his  sixteenth  year.3  The  scholar  probably  met  the 
princes  in  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1516,  when  the 
court  was  at  Brussels,  and  for  Charles  he  wrote  his 
treatise  on  the  education  of  a  Christian  prince,  but  he 
declined  to  undertake  the  duties  of  preceptor  for  reasons 
which,  he  wrote,  “it  would  not  be  safe  to  set  down.” 
These  reasons  are,  however,  explained  in  one  of  his 
Adages ,  first  published  in  1515, 4  and  show  that  he  had 
already  gauged  the  difficulties  of  training  a  king. 

Now  we  see  hardly  any  men  educated  more  corruptly  or  laxly 
than  those  whom  it  is  so  very  important  to  have  brought  up  as 
well  as  possible.  This  child  about  to  rule  the  world  is  committed 
to  the  charge  of  silly  women,  who  are  so  far  from  instilling  into  his 
mind  anything  worthy  of  a  prince,  that  they  even  dissuade  him 

but  I  agree  with  Doctor  Reich  and  Mr.  Nichols  in  placing  it  in  January,  1516. 
In  addition  to  the  reasons  given  by  Allen,  ii,  p.  452-453,  may  be  mentioned 
the  following:  Pirckheimer  expresses  the  hope  that  Erasmus  will  visit  Nurem¬ 
berg  on  the  way  to  Leipzig.  This  would  be  convenient  only  if  Erasmus  was 
at  Basle,  as  he  was  in  January,  1516.  In  1517  he  was  in  the  Netherlands. 

1  Allen,  epp.  386,  418;  Nichols,  epp.  392,  400. 

1  Allen,  ep.  370,  note  18;  Nichols,  ii,  272;  Allen,  epp.  470,  565.  On  the  trip 
to  the  Netherlands  to  meet  Le  Sauvage  and  perhaps  Charles,  Allen,  ep.  412, 
and  ii,  p.  240;  Nichols,  ep.  399. 

*  Allen,  epp.  917,  952. 

4  Adagia,  “Aut  Regem  aut  fatuum  nasci  oportere,”  chil.  1,  cent.  3,  prov.  1. 
LB.  ii,  no. 


ERASMUS 


148 

from  heeding  the  salutary  admonitions  of  his  tutor  and  the  gentle 
impulses  of  his  own  nature.  Everyone  flatters,  everyone  agrees 
with  him.  The  nobles  applaud,  the  ministers  comply,  even  the 
tutor  adulates,  not  acting  so  as  to  make  the  prince  a  blessing  to  his 
country,  but  so  as  to  accumulate  a  fortune  for  himself.  The  theo¬ 
logian  commonly  called  his  confessor  also  flatters  him.  .  .  .  He 
hears  himself  called  “sacred  majesty,  serenity,  divinity,  terrestrial 
god,”and  such  like  titles.  In  short,  while  yet  a  boy  he  learns  nothing 
but  how  to  play  the  tyrant.  Soon  he  is  put  in  the  company  of  girls, 
all  of  whom  invite  his  addresses,  praise  him,  and  serve  his  wishes. 
His  court  is  a  crowd  of  effeminate  youths,  whose  only  words  and 
jests  are  of  girls.  The  best  part  of  his  youth  is  consumed  in  gaming, 
dancing,  music,  and  running  hither  and  thither. 

In  May,  1516,  Erasmus  returned  from  Basle  to  the 
Netherlands,  which  he  made  his  headquarters  for  the 
next  five  and  a  half  years,  living  first  chiefly  at  Antwerp 
and  Brussels  and,  after  July,  1517,  chiefly  at  Louvain. 
At  Antwerp  he  had  a  good  friend  in  Peter  Gilles, 
immortalized  as  More’s  host  in  the  Utopia.  Gilles, 
besides  occupying  the  position  of  Chief  Secretary  of 
the  city  of  Antwerp,  devoted  much  attention  to  letters, 
for,  though  he  wrote  little  himself,  he  edited  important 
works  for  other  men,  who  valued  his  advice.  On  the 
occasion  of  Gilles’s  marriage  with  Cornelia  Sandria 
(1514)  Erasmus  wrote  an  epithalamium  in  which  the 
three  Graces  and  the  nine  Muses  speak  words  of  praise.1 
When,  after  bearing  a  number  of  children,  Cornelia  died, 
about  August,  1526,  Erasmus  wrote  her  epitaph.  Pres¬ 
ently  Gilles  married  again  and  when  he  lost  this  wife 
also  his  friend  contributed  an  inscription  to  her  memory. 

While  Erasmus  was  staying  at  the  house  of  the 
Secretary  of  Antwerp,  about  May,  1517,  he  and  his 
host  had  their  pictures  painted  by  the  celebrated  artist, 
Quentin  Matsys,2  both  portraits  being  intended  for 
presentation  to  Thomas  More.  The  great  humanist 

1  Later  included  in  the  Colloquia,  LB.  i,  p.  746.  On  Gilles,  Allen,  i,  p.  413; 
ii,  p.  35;  iii,  p.  146. 

*  The  original  of  Erasmus  is  at  the  Stroganoff  Gallery  at  Rome;  that  of 
Gilles  at  Longford  Castle,  England.  A  copy  of  the  Erasmus  is  at  Hampton 
Court.  Both  pictures  are  reproduced  in  Allen,  ii,  576.  See  Allen,  683,  notes. 


THE  RHINE 


149 


was  represented  sitting  at  a  desk,  with  an  open  book 
before  him,  ready  to  write.  When  the  paint  was  fresh 
it  was  possible  to  see  that  the  book  was  the  Paraphrase 
to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ,  but  the  letters  are  no  longer 
visible.  On  the  forefinger  of  the  delicately  veined  right 
hand  a  seal  ring  is  conspicuous.  The  finely  chiseled 
features  wear  a  pensive  expression,  not  at  all  like  the 
satirical  cast  of  countenance  seen  in  Holbein’s  later 
portraits.  There  were  two  natures  in  the  same  man; 
one  the  scholar  and  theologian,  represented  by  the 
Enchiridion  and  the  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament ,  the 
other  the  sportive  mocker,  emerging  in  the  Moria. 
Matsys,  the  painter  of  serious,  religious  pictures,  saw 
the  one  side  of  the  man;  Holbein,  the  merry  portrait- 
painter  and  caricaturist,  the  other.  The  boyish  face  of 
Gilles,  in  the  diptych,  makes  a  good  contrast  to  its 
pendant.  He  is  holding  a  letter  of  More  in  his  hand,1 * * 
and  has  before  him  a  copy  of  the  Antiharbari 2  by 
Erasmus — fit  symbols  of  his  fame  depending  mostly  on 
his  friends. 

Both  pictures  were  sent  to  More  in  September.8  His 
letters4  of  acknowledgment  to  Erasmus  and  Gilles  show 
how  immensely  pleased  he  was.  To  the  former  he  wrote: 

You  can  more  easily  imagine  than  I  can  tell  how  delighted  I  am. 
For  as  the  likenesses  of  such  men  done  even  in  chalk  or  charcoal 
would  captivate  all  who  were  not  dead  to  admiration  of  learning 
and  virtue,  how  can  anyone  express  in  words  or  fail  to  conceive 
how  much  I  am  ravished  when  the  features  of  such  friends  are 
recalled  to  my  memory,  by  pictures  drawn  with  such  art  that  they 
may  challenge  comparison  with  the  works  of  any  ancient  painter? 
Whoever  sees  them  would  think  them  molded  or  sculptured  rather 
than  painted,  so  exactly  do  they  seem  to  stand  out  in  the  exact 
proportions  of  the  human  figure.  You  cannot  believe,  dearest 
Erasmus,  how  much  your  care  to  please  me  has  added  to  my  love 

1  The  writing  is  not  legible,  but  More  speaks  of  it.  Allen,  ep.  683. 

*  As  the  first  known  edition  of  this  book  was  printed  at  Cologne  in  1518,  the 
title  must  have  been  added  later,  or  this  picture  represents  a  manuscript,  or 
previous  edition,  not  now  extant. 

*  Allen,  ep.  654. 

4  Allen,  epp.  683,  684. 


ERASMUS 


150 

for  you,  though  I  was  sure  before  that  nothing  could  add  to  it, 
nor  how  I  glory  in  your  esteem  and  in  this  token  by  which  you 
declare  that  you  prefer  my  love  to  that  of  anyone. 

Having  painted  the  portrait,  Matsys  proceeded  to 
found  some  bronze  medallions  with  a  head  of  Erasmus, 
newly  drawn  and  quite  different  from  the  first  work. 
He  did  this  in  1519,  if  we  may  assume  that  they  are 
the  same  as  the  medallions  bearing  that  date  now  ex¬ 
tant  in  the  museum  at  Basle  and  at  the  Luther-house 
in  Wittenberg.  A  friend  who  saw  one  in  1528  considered 
it  wonderfully  lifelike.1 

A  still  greater  artist  was  next  to  try  his  hand  on  the 
famous  writer.  When  Albert  Diirer  came  to  the  Nether¬ 
lands  in  1520-21,  he  met  Erasmus  several  times  and, 
about  September  1,  1520,  made  two  sketches  of  him  in 
charcoal,  apparently  with  the  intention  of  turning  one  of 
them  into  a  painting,  though  he  never  found  time  to  do 
this.  Six  years  later  he  made  an  etching  from  one  study, 
a  copy  of  which  he  sent  to  Erasmus,  who,  though  he 
praised  the  artist’s  other  work  highly,  did  not  care  for 
this  and  thought  it  “nothing  like,”2  and  was  even 
reported  to  have  said,  “If  I  look  like  that  I  am  a  great 
knave.”3  Indeed,  neither  of  the  two  Diirer  drawings 
was  successful.  The  one,  now  at  the  Bonnat  Museum, 
Paris,  is  nearly  full-face.  The  half-closed,  downcast 
eyes  and  the  smiling  mouth  have  a  sweet  expression 
not  found  so  readily  in  the  other  portraits.  The  second 
sketch,  worked  up  in  the  woodcut,  is  far  more  elaborate. 
The  scholar  is  seated  at  his  desk,  writing,  with  a  vase 
of  flowers  before  him  and  surrounded  by  books.  In  one 
of  the  gouty  hands  is  a  quill,  in  the  other  the  long, 


1  Henry  Botteus  to  Erasmus,  March  6,  1528,  Enthoven,  no.  60.  Erasmus 
to  Botteus,  March  29,  1528,  LB.  ep.  954.  Haarhans,  op.  cit.,  Archiv  fur 
Reformations  geschichte ,  8  Jahrgang,  p.  145.  See  Allen,  ep.  1092,  and  reproduc¬ 
tion  of  this  medallion  opposite. 

J  A.  Diirers  Schriftlicher  Nachlass,  ed.  Heidrich,  1908,  p.  50,  between 
August  28  and  September  3,  1520.  Cf.  Lond.  xxx,  29,  43;  LB.  epp.  631,  827, 
954- 

1  Luther's  Tischreden,  Weimar,  vi,  1921,  no.  6886. 


Iavago  er a smi-ro  ter od  a 

J  A\I  *  AB  AI  BpRTO  DV RERO  AD | 
VIVA A\  •  EFF IGIEAV  DEUNIATA* 


Thn  KPEITTEI  TA*  SYrrPAM. 
AVATA' AI3EI 


D 


V 


X 


X 


ERASMUS 

Woodcut  made  by  Albert  Diirer 


THE  RHINE 


151 

narrow  inkhorn.  The  countenance,  composed  and 
earnest,  is  less  fine  and  less  attractive  than  it  appears 
elsewhere.  In  fact,  the  artist  is  not  giving  us  a  char¬ 
acter  study,  but  a  bit  of  the  genre  he  loved;  it  is  not 
so  much  Erasmus  we  see  here  as  the  typical  scholar. 

This  ill  success  did  not  prevent  Diirer  from  becoming 
an  excellent  friend  of  his  sitter.  He  gave  him  three  of 
his  own  drawings,  and  made  likenesses  of  many  of  his 
friends.1  One  of  these  may  possibly  have  been  Sir 
Thomas  More,  who  was  at  the  time  at  the  court  of 
Charles  V.  But  the  portrait,  if  painted,  has  not  been 
certainly  identified.2 

Various  other  likenesses  of  Erasmus  made  during  these 
years  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  original  studies.  The 
best  is  perhaps  an  anonymous  woodcut  dated  1522, 
showing  a  fine  profile.  It  claims  to  be  drawn  from  life 
and  bears  the  same  inscription  in  Greek,  meaning  “His 
writings  will  show  his  image  more  truly/’  that  is  found 
on  the  medallion  of  1519  and  on  the  Diirer  woodcut. 
In  fact,  not  only  this  inscription,  but  the  details  of  the 
posture,  both  here  and  in  Diirer’s  woodcut,  show  that 
Matsys  had  created  a  type  which  other  artists  felt 
bound  to  follow.  There  are  also  extant  a  woodcut  after 
Matsys  ascribed  to  Cranach,  a  drawing  by  Jerome 
Hopfer  probably  after  the  medallion,  but  showing  a 
more  humorous  expression,  and  a  very  poor  drawing 
ascribed  to  Lucas  van  Leyden,  dated  1521. 

lDiirers  Niederlandische  Reise ,  ed.  J.  Veth  und  S.  Muller,  1918,  i,  55,  at 
Antwerp,  August,  1520. 

2  Preserved  Smith:  “Diirer’s  Portrait  of  Sir  Thomas  More,”  Scribners 
Magazine ,  May,  1912.  The  painting  that  I  there  identified  with  Thomas 
More,  now  in  possession  of  Mrs.  John  Lowell  Gardner,  of  Boston,  has  been 
thought  by  others  to  be  a  portrait  of  Lorenz  Sterck,  though  there  is  no  proof 
save  the  fact  that  Diirer  is  known  to  have  made  Sterck’s  portrait  in  the  year 
1521.  A.  Diirers  Niederlandische  Reise,  von  J.  Veth  und  S.  Muller.  2  vols. 
1918,  vol.  i,  plate  57.  A  few  years  after  the  appearance  of  my  article  there 
turned  up  in  Canada  another  painting  claiming  to  be  by  Diirer  of  Sir  Thomas 
More.  It  is  reproduced  in  Veth  and  Muller,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii.  It  was  sold  by 
G.  A.  Dostal  of  New  York  and  Mme.  Lucille  Krier  de  Maucourant  of  Paris 
to  G.  F.  Glason,  of  Montreal.  New  York  Times,  February  4,  1917.  It  is 
probably  spurious. 


152 


ERASMUS 


But  the  artist  who  more  than  any  other  has  given  to 
posterity  the  pleasure  of  looking  on  this  speaking,  dis¬ 
tinguished  face,  and  who  also  entered  so  fully  into  the 
spirit  of  the  satirist,  was  Hans  Holbein  the  younger.1 
Born  at  Augsburg  in  1497,  he  was  taken  by  his  father, 
a  distinguished  painter,  to  Basle  in  1511.  When  he 
was  barely  eighteen  years  old  (December,  1515)  he 
borrowed  a  copy  of  Froben’s  edition  of  the  Praise  of 
Folly ,  1515,  from  his  friend  and  the  author’s,  Oswald 
Myconius,  master  of  St.  Peter’s  school.2  Very  likely 
at  Myconius’s  suggestion  he  covered  the  broad  margins 
with  those  quaint  and  spirited  drawings  that  have  ever 
since  been  the  appropriate  illustrations  of  the  book;  the 
work  being  done,  as  the  inscription  says,  in  ten  days  in 
order  to  give  Erasmus  pleasure.  There  we  see  Folly, 
a  fresh  young  maiden,  beginning  and  ending  her  lecture 
to  a  crowd  of  boys  in  cap  and  bells.  There  is  the  the¬ 
ologian  studying  Duns  Scotus,  the  pilgrim  with  his 
staff,  the  dunce  with  his  doll,  the  schoolboy  getting  a 
sound  spanking,  all  drawn  from  contemporary  German 
life.  More  biting  sarcasm  is  displayed  in  such  pictures 
as  that  of  the  two  humanists  as  asses  braying  forth  each 
other’s  praise.  The  author  is  represented  sitting  at  his 
desk  writing  his  Adagia ,  and  so  wonderfully  youthful 
and  handsome  does  he  look  that  when  the  picture  was 
shown  to  him  he  exclaimed:  “Oho!  Oho!  If  Erasmus 
still  looked  like  this,  forsooth  he  would  take  a  wife!” 
Was  it  he  who  wrote  over  the  picture  of  a  gay  fellow  guz¬ 
zling  and  swilling,  spilling  his  wine  over  a  dish  of  trout 
and  with  one  arm  about  a  woman,  the  word  “Holbein,” 
to  suggest  that  the  artist  was  here  caricaturing  himself? 

XA.  B.  Chamberlain:  Hans  Holbein  the  Younger,  2  vols.,  1913,  esp.  i,  pp. 
45,  146,  166  ff,  288  ff,  338  ff.  H.  Knackfuss:  Holbein  der  Jiingere,  1896,  pp. 
52  ff,  115.  P.  Gauthier:  H.  Holbein,  190 7,  pp.  20,  80  ff.  Sandys:  History  of 
Classical  Scholarship,  1908,  ii,  132. 

2  Allen,  iii,  p.  382  f;  ep.  739  n,  J.  B.  Kan:  M opiaq  ’E ynu/iLov,  1898,  introduc¬ 
tion.  W.  Hes:  Ambrosius  Holbein,  1911.  K.  Woermann:  Geschichte  der 
Kunst  aller  Zeiten  und  Volker,  iv,  1919,  pp.  497  f.  One  of  the  marginal 
illustrations  has  the  date  “December  29,  1515.” 


THE  RHINE 


153 

Though  such  a  jest  would  have  been  taken  in  good 
part,  Erasmus  was  probably  not  guilty  of  it. 

After  Hans  had  finished  thirty-seven  of  these  marginal 
illustrations  including  the  Erasmus,  the  Pope,  the  Cardi¬ 
nal,  the  Bishop,  and  Duns  Scotus,  his  brother  Ambrose 
took  the  work  in  hand  and  added  fifteen  more  drawings, 
including  the  one  labeled,  “Monks  handle  not  gold,  but 
women,”  the  Hercules,  the  Chimaera,  and  other  myth¬ 
ological  subjects.  Still  later  other  artists  added  thirty 
drawings,  much  inferior  in  execution  and  often  coarse 
in  idea. 

The  illustrations  of  the  Folly  are  reprinted  with  almost 
every  edition,  but  those  made  by  Holbein  in  another 
book  of  Erasmus  are  hardly  known  at  all.  There  is  at 
Harvard  a  copy  of  In  evangelium  Lucae  paraphrasis 
nunc  prima  nata  et  aedita  (Basle,  1523)  the  margins  of 
which  are  decorated  with  twenty-seven  original  pen- 
and-ink  drawings  by  Holbein.1  They  represent  subjects 
such  as  Jesus,  the  Virgin,  Dives  and  Lazarus  on  earth 
and  in  heaven.  They  are  indeed  exquisite  little  bits. 
It  is  most  unfortunate  that  the  binder  of  the  book  cut 
the  margins  so  close  as  frequently  to  cut  off  some  of 
the  drawings. 

When  the  humanist  moved  to  Basle  Holbein  made 
several  portraits  of  him,  no  less  than  three  during  the 
year  1523.  One  of  these  was  a  diptych  with  Froben,  of 
which  there  is  an  early  copy  at  Hampton  Court.  This 
and  a  three-quarters  face,  now  at  Longford  Castle,  were 
probably  the  two  portraits  that  Erasmus  said  he  sent 
to  England  in  June,  1524,  one  of  them  as  a  present  to 
Warham.  Holbein  also  made  another  profile,  which 
was  sent  as  a  gift  to  Boniface  Amerbach  at  Avignon. 
It  is  probably  the  one  now  at  the  Louvre.  These  fine 
and  beautiful  studies  exhibit  at  the  very  best  the  deli- 

1  Their  genuineness,  which  seems  highly  probable  to  me,  is  testified  to  by 
an  expert,  the  custodian  of  the  Museum  of  Basle,  D.  Jouaust,  in  a  letter  dated 
Basle,  August  26,  1869.  He  compared  them  with  the  originals  of  the  Folly 
drawings.  Preserved  Smith:  “Some  Unpublished  Drawings  ascribed  to 
Holbein,”  Art  in  America ,  February,  1917* 


154 


ERASMUS 


cacy  and  refinement  of  the  original.  The  loveliness  of 
the  soul  has  wrought  out  upon  the  flesh  a  serene  dis¬ 
tinction,  a  serious  purpose  not  without  humor,  a  character 
upon  which  no  evil  passion  has  set  its  stamp.  One  can 
easily  read  the  inscription  carved  upon  the  features  by 
a  lifetime  spent  in  the  high  company  of  ancient  philos¬ 
ophers  and  poets. 

Perhaps  at  the  suggestion  of  Erasmus,  from  whom 
he  bore  letters  of  introduction,  Holbein  set  out  for 
England  about  August  29,  1526,  and  there  made  a 
prodigious  success,  painting  Warham,  Fisher,  and  Sir 
Thomas  More  both  alone  and  with  his  whole  family.1 
He  returned  to  Basle  in  August,  1528,  bearing  with 
him  as  a  gift  the  picture  of  More’s  family.  During 
his  second  visit  to  England,  in  1530,  he  painted  Henry 
VIII,  his  wives  and  courtiers. 

Boniface  Amerbach  speaks  of  a  portrait  of  the  dead 
Erasmus  by  Holbein,  but  of  this  nothing  else  is  known. 
A  woodcut  from  one  of  Holbein’s  paintings  was  made 
by  Liitzelburger  in  1530.  In  the  next  century  Van  Dyke 
engraved  the  same,  but  poorly,  giving  the  face  an 
expression  not  only  grim  and  sarcastic,  but  positively 
pained. 

During  the  years  15 17-21  Erasmus  occupied  a  some¬ 
what  indeterminate  position  at  the  University  of  Lou¬ 
vain.2  Always  suspected  by  the  conservatives,  he  was 
now  continually  the  object  of  some  criticism  or  attack. 
One  occasion  for  hostilities  came  with  the  founding  of 
the  new  College  of  Three  Languages  to  be  a  special 


1  LB.  epp.  Appendix  327  (wrongly  dated  1523),  appendix  ep.  334  (wrongly 
dated  1525),  appendix  ep.  351.  Lond.  xxvi,  50;  LB.  ep.  1075,  wrongly  dated 
1529  for  1528.  On  October  28,  1738,  the  Earl  of  Oxford  saw  at  Mr.  Lenthall’s 
house  at  Burford  a  picture  said  to  be  More’s  family  by  Holbein,  which  he 
thought  was  not  original.  Reports  of  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission , 
Portland  MSS.,  vi,  180.  On  August  16,  1669,  Sir  Harbottle  Grimston  saw  at 
the  Earl  of  Beaufort’s  seat  at  Badmington,  Holbein’s  Erasmus.  MSS.  of  Earl 
of  Verulam ,  1906,  p.  248. 

2  He  matriculated  at  Louvain  as  “Magister  Erasmus  de  Roterodamis  sacrae 
theologiae  professor,”  on  August  30,  1517;  see  De  Vocht  in  English  Historical 
Review ,  January,  1922,  pp.  89  ff. 


THE  RHINE 


155 


home  of  the  new  learning.  The  money  for  the  under¬ 
taking  came  from  a  bequest  of  Erasmus’s  wealthy  friend, 
Jerome  Busleiden,  who  died  on  August  27,  1517,  and 
the  humanist  played  an  active  part  in  carrying  out  the 
intention  of  the  founder.1  The  natural  antipathy  of  the 
old  scholastics  for  the  new  Greek  and  Hebrew  was 
aroused  by  this,  and  was  further  stimulated  by  an 
Oration  on  the  Knowledge  of  V arious  Languages ,  written 
by  Mosellanus  of  the  University  of  Leipzig.  This 
promising  young  man  had  already  been  in  correspondence 
with  Erasmus,  who  said  of  him  “He  loves  glory,  but 
he  knows  not  what  a  weight  glory  is.’’2  He  was  most 
fiercely  attacked  not  only  at  home,  but  by  one  of  the 
Louvain  professors,  a  certain  James  Latomus.  This  man, 
who  afterward  figured  actively  as  an  inquisitor  at  the 
trial  of  William  Tyndale,  published  a  Dialogue  on  the 
Three  Languages  and  Theological  Study ,  beating  Erasmus 
over  the  shoulders  of  Mosellanus.  The  Dutch  humanist 
replied  with  an  Apology ,  not  mentioning  the  Saxon 
professor,  but  trying  only  to  prove  that  he  was  not 
touched  by  Latomus’s  charges. 

Further  trouble  came  when  Alard  of  Amsterdam 
announced  that  he  would  begin  lecturing  at  the  College 
of  Three  Languages  on  a  book  of  Erasmus.  This  so 
fluttered  the  dove-cotes  of  the  theological  faculty  that 
on  March  8,  1519 — the  very  day  after  the  announcement 
was  made — the  rector  of  the  university  convoked  a 
council  which  refused  permission  for  the  course.  A 
bitter  quarrel,  patched  up  by  a  truce  in  September, 
broke  out  again  in  November.  Meantime  Erasmus’s 
Encomium  of  Marriage  had  been  attacked  as  heretical 

1  F.  Neve:  Memoir e  sur  le  college  des  trois-langues  a  Vuniversite  de  Louvain, 
1856.  F.  Neve:  La  renaissance  des  lettres  et  lessor  de  l erudition  dans  les  Pays - 
Bas,  1890.  H.  de  Jongh:  L'  ancienne  Faculte  de  Theologie  de  Louvain  1432- 
I54°>  I9H-  Allen,  ep.  205.  Bibliotheca  Belgica,  s.  v.  “Latomus:  De  Trium 
Linguarum  Colie gio  Dialogus,  1519.” 

2  Erasmus’s  remark  on  Mosellanus  is  preserved  in  Luthers  Tischreden, 
Weimar,  iv,  no.  4921.  On  Mosellanus  (whose  real  name  was  Peter  Schade) 
see  Allen,  ii,  p.  517.  On  this  quarrel  with  Latomus  see  Pijper:  Primitiae 
pontificiae,  1905,  pp.  1-84. 


156  ERASMUS 

by  J.  Robyns,  on  February  21,  1519,  and  thereafter 
trouble  was  chronic.1 

A  letter  written  just  before  the  humanist  left  Louvain, 
on  July  5,  1521,  gives  an  interesting  account  of  the 
university.  Louvain,  with  three  thousand  students, 
is  pronounced  second  to  Paris,  each  college  supporting 
one  president,  three  professors,  and  twelve  scholars 
entertained  gratis,  as  well  as  some  students  who  pay 
board.  The  auditorium  is  often  crowded  with  classes 
numbering  a  hundred  or  more.  The  colleges  are  not 
inelegantly  built,  and  the  salaries  large  in  proportion 
to  the  endowment,  though  small  when  compared  with 
the  needs  of  the  teachers.2 

By  reason  of  his  fame  Erasmus  was  drawn  to  some 
small  extent  into  public  affairs.  He  heard  with  horror 
of  the  sack  of  Alkmaar  by  the  Black  Band,  and  approved 
of  its  dispersal.3  He  was  at  one  time  given  a  com¬ 
mission  from  the  Emperor  Maximilian  to  treat  on 
some  unknown  matter  with  the  University  of  Louvain.4 
He  was  occasionally  found  at  the  court  of  Margaret, 
regent  of  the  Netherlands,  and  at  that  of  Charles  V 
after  the  latter  returned  to  Brabant  from  his  Spanish 
kingdom.5  Among  many  famous  men,  he  met  Ferdi¬ 
nand  Columbus,  son  of  the  Admiral,  to  whom,  on 
October  7,  1520,  he  gave  a  copy  of  his  Antibarbari.  All 
that  is  known  of  the  meeting  comes  from  the  inscription 
in  this  book,  half  in  Spanish  and  half  in  Latin:  “The 
author  himself  gave  me  this  book,  as  appears  on  the 
eighth  page.  Erasmus  Roterodamus  gave  this  as  a  pres¬ 
ent  to  Don  Ferdinand  Colon.  Louvain,  on  Sunday, 

1  De  Jongh,  op.  cit.y  p.  197  ff. 

2  To  Daniel  Tayspil,  Anderlecht,  July  5,  1521,  Allen,  ep.  1221.  Luigi 
d’Aragona,  who  visited  Louvain  about  this  time,  reports  the  number  of 
students  at  six  thousand,  a  great  exaggeration.  L.  von  Pastor:  Die  Reise 
Luigis  d’Aragona ,  1908,  p.  56.  Even  Erasmus’s  figures  may  be  too  large. 

3  Allen,  epp.  628,  832. 

4  Allen,  epp.  669,  670. 

5  For  a  visit  in  company  with  Pace  in  May,  1510,  see  Allen,  epp.  970,  971; 
Deutsche  Reich  stags  akten  unter  Karl  V ,  ed.  Wrede,  ii,  685,  note. 


THE  RHINE 


i57 

October  7,  1520.  Erasmus  himself  wrote  the  first  two 
lines  here  with  his  own  hand.”1 

Erasmus’s  reputation  was  now  such  that,  as  a  younger 
contemporary  says,  “all  men  desired  his  writings  and 
regarded  them  with  favor.  A  letter  from  him  was  a 
great  glory  and  a  splendid  triumph  to  its  recipient.  He 
to  whom  was  accorded  the  advantage  of  a  meeting  and 
some  conversation  seemed  to  himself  one  of  the  favorites 
of  fortune.”  Occasionally  young  enthusiasts  wTould  make 
a  regular  pilgrimage  to  his  residence.  One  of  these 
devotees  to  visit  him  in  October,  1518,  was  Eoban  of 
Hesse,  a  lecturer  at  Erfurt  and  leader  of  the  circle  of 
humanists  in  that  academy.  In  return  for  letters  and 
gifts  brought  by  him  he  took  back  a  sheaf  of  epistles 
containing  flattering  allusions  to  his  own  facility  in 
Latin  prose  and  verse.  These  letters  he  published,  with 
an  account  of  his  trip,  in  a  booklet  with  the  title  Hodce- 
poricon ,2  not  altogether  to  the  satisfaction  of  Erasmus. 
Seven  months  later  another  pilgrim  to  the  shrine  of 
letters  came  in  the  person  of  Justus  Jonas,  later  known  as 
a  prominent  Lutheran  reformer.3  At  Erfurt,  thoroughly 
Erasmian  in  1520,  Eoban  lectured  on  the  Enchiridion , 
another  professor,  Crafft,  on  the  Praise  of  Folly ,  while 
Mutianus  Rufus,  the  philosophic  canon  of  Gotha  near 
by,  wrote  to  John  Lang  of  Erfurt  that  Erasmus  took 
the  prize  as  the  greatest  of  critics,  and  advised  another 
friend  to  begin  each  lecture  with  a  proverb  culled  from 
the  Adagia.4  When  Lewis  Platz  was  rector,  in  1520,  an 
official  communication  from  the  university  asked  and 
was  answered  by  advice  from  Erasmus  on  the  reform 
of  the  curriculum.5 

1 J.  B.  Thacher:  Christopher  Columbus ,  iii,  1904,  432  f.  Read  “la”  for 
“laz.”  Allen,  ep.  1147,  introduction. 

2  In  1519.  Copy  at  Harvard.  The  letters  are  reprinted  by  Allen,  epp.  870  ff. 
Cf.  Allen,  ep.  982. 

*  Allen,  ep.  876,  963. 

4  C.  Krause:  Eoban  Hess ,  1879,  i,  288  f,  315;  J.  Burgdorf:  Johann  Lange , 

I9II,  P-  24. 

6  J.  C.  H.  Weissenborn:  Akten  der  Erfurter  Universiidt ,  1884,  ii,  314.  L.  C. 
ep.  281,  Allen,  ep.  1127. 


i58 


ERASMUS 


From  another  university  town  came  further  proof  that 
Erasmus  was  the  best  seller  of  his  day.  The  accounts 
of  John  Dome,  an  Oxford  bookseller,  for  1520,  show  that 
a  third  of  all  his  sales  were  of  works  bv  Erasmus,  the 
favorites  being  the  Enchiridion ,  the  Adages ,  and  three 
textbooks  of  Latin  style,  the  Colloquies ,  the  De  Con - 
structione ,  and  the  Copia.1 

1  Oxford  Historical  Society  Collectanea,  1885,  1,  71-77.  See  T.  M.  Lindsay 
in  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature ,  iii,  1909,  p.  19. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

THE  purpose  that  gave  unity  and  nobility  to 
Erasmus’s  life  was  his  championship  of  “the 
philosophy  of  Christ,”  by  which  he  understood  a  simple, 
rational,  and  classical  Christianity.  A  prerequisite  to  the 
realization  of  his  program  was  the  publication  and 
thorough  scientific  study  of  the  ancient  Christian  texts. 
Biblical  criticism,  therefore,  both  textual  and  literary, 
occupied  much  of  the  best  energies  of  his  life.  His  aim 
was  always  practical — to  aid  reform,  not  primarily  to 
produce  a  work  of  disinterested  scholarship.  But  the 
achievement  was  great,  and  in  the  end  accomplished 
much  of  what  he  wished  in  rationalizing  religion.  For 
his  work  was  the  effective  beginning  of  that  philological 
criticism  of  the  Bible  that,  after  so  hard  a  battle,  has 
at  last  done  so  much  to  free  Christendom  from  the 
bondage  of  superstition  and  of  the  letter.1 

By  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Vulgate — 
St.  Jerome’s  version  of  the  Bible,  or,  rather,  his  revision 
of  still  earlier  Latin  versions — had  been  printed  many 
times.  Though  commonly  esteemed,  as  it  was  later 
declared  by  the  Council  of  Trent  to  be,2  the  authentic 
form  of  the  Scriptures,  and  though  referred  to  as  “the 
accepted  text,”3  there  was  no  standard  edition  of  it, 

'A.  D.  White:  Warfare  of  Science  and  Theology ,  1898,  chap,  xx,  especially 
vol.  ii,  pp.  303  ff. 

1  In  the  decree  of  April  8,  1546.  “Statuit  et  declarat,  ut  haec  ipsa  vetus  et 
vulgata  editio  .  .  .  pro  authentica  habeatur,  et  ut  nemo  illam  reiicere 

quovis  praetextu  audeat  vel  praesumat.”  C.  Mirbt:  Quellen  zur  Geschichte 
des  Papsttums ,*  1911,  p.  21 1.  Realencyklopddie  fur  protestantische  Theologies 
“  Bibelubersetzupgen.” 

*  Roger  Bacon. 


i6o 


ERASMUS 


manuscripts  and  printed  books  differing  from  each 
other.  Erasmus,  who  possessed  an  edition  printed  about 
1465,  and  who  examined  many  codices,  noted  this.1 

The  revival  of  Greek,  together  with  that  birth  of  a 
new  spirit  in  the  later  Middle  Ages,  inevitably  led  to  an 
examination  of  the  Bible  and  to  a  discovery  of  the 
faults  of  the  old  version  and  a  desire  for  fresh  study. 
Lorenzo  Valla's  Notes  on  the  New  Testament ,  written 
about  1450,  embodied  the  first  attempt  at  a  scientific 
criticism  of  the  Vulgate.  With  three  Latin  and  three 
Greek  manuscripts  in  his  hands,  he  had  no  difficulty 
in  pointing  out  and  in  emending  many  errors  both 
in  readings  and  in  translation.2  Shortly  afterward  a 
humanist  pope,  Nicholas  V,  encouraged  a  competent 
scholar,  Gianozzo  Manetti,  to  make  a  new  Latin  version 
of  the  Bible  from  the  original  tongues,  and  the  work 
was  actually  begun,  though  never  completed.  Manetti 
printed  in  parallel  columns  the  oldest  Latin  version, 
known  as  the  Itala,  the  Vulgate,  and  his  own  translation, 
and  defended  the  undertaking  against  the  attacks  he 
easily  foresaw.3  Half  a  century  later  a  highly  cultivated 
woman,  Isabella  d’Este,  employed  a  learned  Jew  to 
translate  the  Psalms  from  Hebrew,  in  order  to  be  sure  of 
getting  their  true  meaning.4  A  number  of  scholars  had 
now  come  to  feel  the  need  of  a  new  exegesis,  based  on 
philological  apparatus,  not  on  outworn  postulates  of 
the  schoolmen.  Though  John  Colet  was  able  to  do 
little  to  supply  the  want,  his  broad,  free  lectures  on  St. 
Paul  show  that  he  felt  it.5  An  immense  stimulus  to  the 
study  of  Hebrew  was  given  by  John  Reuchlin.  A 
marked  advance  in  biblical  exegesis  came  with  the 
publication,  by  the  French  savant,  James  Lefevre 
d’fitapl  es,  of  the  Quintuplex  Psalterium ,  a  Latin  and 

1  LB.  ix,  766. 

2  P.  Monnier:  Le  Quattrocento ,  1908,  i,  284. 

3  Cambridge  Modern  History,  i,  679;  A.  Humbert:  Origines  de  la  theologie 
moderne,  1911,  pp.  117  ff. 

4  J.  Cartwright:  Isabella  d’Este,  1903,  i,  78. 

6  Published  in  several  volumes  by  J.  H.  Lupton. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


161 


French  edition  of  the  Psalms,  with  commentary,  in 
1509,  and  of  a  new  translation  of  the  Pauline  Epistles 
in  1512.  In  the  early  lectures  of  Luther,  which  have 
come  down  to  us,  we  see  how  eagerly  students  were 
grasping  at  what  the  original  tongues  could  tell  them 
of  the  meaning  of  the  Bible.1 

Such  was  the  situation  when  Erasmus  took  up  the 
task.  He  did  it  under  the  widely  diverse  influences  of 
Colet  and  of  Valla,  the  one  aglow  with  piety,  the  other 
as  cold  a  rationalist  as  was  ever  born.  Valla’s  Notes 
on  the  New  Testament ,  as  yet  unprinted,  Erasmus  found 
in  the  Praemonstratensian  Abbey  of  Parc  near  Louvain, 
in  the  autumn  of  1504.  Though  he  knew  that  to  publish 
such  an  attack  on  the  Vulgate  would  be  attended  with 
no  little  risk,  he  did  so,  in  December,  at  Paris,  with  a 
preface  that  is  mainly  an  apology  for  his  temerity.2 
At  the  same  time  he  urged  the  need  of  minute  research, 
in  words  that  are  a  defense  of  all  detailed  scholarship: 
“He  is  occupied  with  the  smallest  things,  but  such  as 
the  greatest  cannot  afford  to  neglect;  he  deals  with 
minute  points,  but  such  as  have  serious  consequences.” 
The  work  had  more  importance  than  is  generally  rec¬ 
ognized.  With  this  initiation  into  biblical  criticism 
we  see  the  unfolding,  or  budding,  of  a  new  spirit.  Sick 
and  tired  of  the  old  glosses,  the  interminable  subtleties 
that  seemed  beside  the  point,  the  age  had  at  last  found 
something  fresh,  the  Bible  treated  in  the  spirit  of 
Quintilian,  not  as  an  oracular  riddle,  but  as  a  piece  of 
literature.  It  was  the  skeptic  Valla  that  first  disclosed 
the  true,  sound  method  of  exegesis,  and  thus  uncovered 
the  long-hidden  meaning.  The  cock  had  found  the 
pearl;  the  careless  wayfarer  had  chanced  upon  the 
nugget  of  gold;  the  scoffer  who  sought  to  shame  truth 
by  unveiling  her  had  made  her  more  beautiful.  And 

1  K.  A.  Meissinger:  Luthers  Exegese  in  der  Fruhzeit,  1911;  0.  Scheel: 
Martin  Luther,  Vom  Katholizismus  zur  Reformation,  1917,  ii,  210  ff Preserved 
Smith:  “Luther’s  Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith 
Only,”  Harvard  Theological  Review,  1913,  407  flF. 

2  Allen,  i,  p.  406,  ep.  182;  Nichols,  ep.  182. 


ERASMUS 


162 

Erasmus  was  the  man  to  perceive  the  value  of  the  new 
treasure  and  to  set  it  in  a  blaze  of  brilliants.1 

It  was  probably  at  the  instigation  of  Colet  that 
Erasmus  began  an  original  Latin  version  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  work,  embodying  the  matter  he  had 
acquired  from  Valla,  and  aiming  at  purity  of  Latin  style, 
was  completed  in  manuscript  by  October,  1506.  After 
the  return  from  Italy  (1509)  the  labor  of  polishing  the 
translation  was  taken  up  and  the  manuscript  shown 
to  Richard  Bere,  Abbot  of  Glastonbury.  This  gentle¬ 
man,  however,  disapproved,  and  probably  for  that  reason 
the  idea  of  publishing  it  was  postponed,  not  to  be  realized 
until  the  second  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  in  1519.2 

Inevitably,  when  so  many  Greek  classics  were  pouring 
from  the  press,  the  thought  suggested  itself  to  scholars 
of  publishing  the  original  of  the  sacred  texts.  Es¬ 
pecially  as  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  had  long  since 
been  published  by  Jewish  rabbis,  it  seemed  shameful  to 
neglect  the  specifically  Christian  writings.  Cardinal 
Ximenes  planned  a  sumptuous  edition  of  the  Bible  in 
all  ancient  tongues  and  versions.  The  earliest  volume, 
containing  the  New  Testament,  was  printed,  according 
to  the  colophon  following  the  Greek  text,  by  Arnold 
William  de  Brocario,  at  Alcala,  on  January  10,  1514. 
After  the  text  had  been  completed,  however,  the  volume 
was  kept  back  a  considerable  time,  partly  in  order  to 
allow  the  addition  of  a  Greek  vocabulary  and  other 
explanatory  matter,  partly  in  order  to  get  the  approval 
of  the  pope.  This  last  was  expressed  in  a  breve  printed 
in  Vol.  I  of  the  Old  Testament,  dated  March  22,  1520.3 

1  Humbert,  op.  cit.,  p.  190  f.  Meissinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  86,  for  Luther’s  use  of 
the  Annotationes. 

2  Allen,  ii,  pp.  181-183;  Lond.  xviii,  46;  LB.  ep.  700,  Erasmus  to  Bere, 
1524.  Wordsworth:  Old- Latin  Biblical  Texts ,  1883.  Realencyklopddie ,3  iii,  p. 
57.  Some  sarcasm,  undeserved  in  the  light  of  the  facts  here  given,  has  been 
leveled  against  Erasmus  for  the  supposed  speed  with  which  he  executed  his 
translation. 

a  Novum  testamentum  grcece  et  latine  in  academia  Complutensi  noviter  impres - 
sum,  1514.  Fetus  testamentum  multiplici  lingua  nunc  primum  tmpressum.  In 
hac  praclarissima  Complutensi  unvoersitate,  1517- 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


163 

It  was  perhaps  some  rumor  of  the  forthcoming  Spanish 
edition  that  hastened  the  completion  of  a  plan  that 
Erasmus  had  certainly  entertained  for  many  years.  In 
March,  1516,  he  brought  out  his  own  Greek  text  under 
the  title  Novum  instrumentum  omne ,  diligenter  ab  Erasmo 
Rot.  recognitum  et  emendatum ,  Basileae  Jo.  Frobenius, 
mense  februario,  1516.  The  word  “Instrument”1  chosen 
in  conformity  with  the  usage  of  Tertullian,  and  em¬ 
ployed  also  by  Jerome,  by  Rufinus,  and  by  Augustine, 
was  changed  to  “Testament”  in  the  reprint  of  1518, 
and  in  all  subsequent  editions.  A  Latin  version  differing 
little  from  the  Vulgate  was  added  to  the  Greek,  and  also 
copious  notes.  A  new  edition,  revised,  with  the  Erasmian 
Latin  version  of  1506,  much  more  radical  than  the 
one  used  in  1516,  was  printed  in  1519.  A  third  edi¬ 
tion  followed  in  1522;  after  which  there  was  a  fourth 
revision  by  the  editor,  as  well  as  numerous  reprints — 
no  less  than  sixty-nine  by  the  year  1536.  The  progress 
of  the  work,  at  least  after  1512,  can  be  followed  with 
some  closeness,  but,  without  troubling  ourselves  with 
such  details,  let  us  glance  at  the  results  of  the  textual 
criticism,  at  the  notes,  at  the  Latin  translation,  and  at 
the  reception  of  the  work  by  the  public. 

For  the  first  edition  Erasmus  had  before  him  ten  man¬ 
uscripts,  four  of  which  he  found  in  England,  and  five 
at  Basle,  where  they  had  been  left  by  Cardinal  John  of 
Ragusa,  when  he  attended  the  Council  of  Basle  in 
143 1.2  The  last  codex  was  lent  him  by  John  Reuchlin; 
it  appeared  to  Erasmus  so  old  that  it  might  have  come 
from  the  apostolic  age,  though  modern  critics  assign  it 
to  the  tenth  or  twelfth  century.  This  codex,  the  best 

1  A.  Harnack:  Die  Entstehung  des  Neuen  Testaments ,  1914,  pp.  137  ff. 

a  Erasmus’s  statement  in  1520  that  “at  different  times  he  had  used  more 
than  seven  manuscripts”  (LB.  ix,  275)  either  errs  on  the  side  of  modesty,  or 
else  he  does  not  count  all  the  manuscripts  he  had  seen  as  having  been  “used.” 
Full  accounts  of  his  work  in  A.  Bludau:  Die  beiden  ersten  Erasmus-Ausgaben 
des  Neuen  Testaments ,  1902.  Cf.  also,  Cambridge  Modern  History ,  i,  599; 
Realencyklopadie,  ii,  754  ff,  article  “Bibeltext  des  N.  T.”;  P.  S.  Allen,  ii,  pp. 
164  ff,  181  ff.  E.  Nestle:  Introduction  to  Text  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament , 
English  trans.,  1901. 


ERASMUS 


164 

he  had,  he  utilized  only  for  the  Apocalypse,  which  was 
lacking  in  the  other  MSS.  Neither  did  he  use,  save  on 
rare  occasions,  the  best  of  the  Basle  MSS.  (twelfth 
century),  for  he  believed  that  it  had  been  altered  to 
agree  with  the  Vulgate.1  The  gospels  he  took  almost 
entirely  from  a  cursive  codex  (no.  2  of  the  Basle  MSS.), 
probably  of  the  fifteenth  century,  though  possibly  some¬ 
what  earlier;  for  the  Acts  and  Epistles  he  used  a  slightly 
older  codex,  which  he  sent  to  the  press  without  copying, 
but  with  a  few  corrections  chalked  out  in  red.  The 
Apocalypse  suffered  most  severely  at  his  hands,  for 
it  was  copied,  by  one  of  his  assistants,  with  many 
gross  errors,  some  of  which  have  been  perpetuated  for 
centuries.  Thus,  the  reading  (Apoc.  xvii:8)  ovx  !<m 
xaL7tEp  ean  is  a  mistake  for  oix  egvlv  xcu  napECrac. 
This  slip  was  repeated  not  only  in  subsequent  Greek 
editions,  but  crept  into  Luther’s  German,  where  it  was 
first  corrected  in  1892;  and  into  the  Authorized  English 
Bible,  which  reads,  “is  not  and  yet  is” — the  Revised 
Version  altered  the  reading  to  “is  not  and  shall  come.” 
As  the  last  six  verses  were  lacking  altogether  in  his  MS. 
Erasmus  supplied  them  by  translating  the  Vulgate  into 
very  lame  Greek.  His  critical  note,  that  he  has  “added 
some  words  from  the  Latin,”  hardly  gives  an  adequate 
idea  of  the  extent  of  his  enterprise.  But  the  work  as 
a  whole  must  not  be  judged  by  such  dubious  procedure, 
the  butt  of  endless  sarcasm  by  modern  scholars.  Erasmus 
actually  did  collate  MSS.  and  on  critical  principles, 
though  not  the  soundest.  He  was  able,  here  and  there, 
by  means  of  grammatical  and  historical  knowledge 
superior  to  that  of  his  contemporaries,  to  improve  the 
text  by  conjectural  emendation.  His  wide  reading  in 
the  early  fathers  stood  him  in  good  stead  not  only  in 
elucidating,  but  in  restoring  the  text.2  He  compared 


1  LB.  ix,  1049D. 

8  One  authority  used  by  him  in  this  manner  was  the  Commentary  on  the 
Gospels  by  Theophylact  of  Bulgaria,  called  Vulgarius.  Cambridge  Modern 
History ,  i,  603. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


165 

the  citations  from  the  Old  Testament  with  the  Septuagint, 
and  secured  the  services  of  (Ecolampadius  for  a  similar 
collation  with  the  Hebrew. 

Erasmus  did  not  drop  critical  work  with  the  publi¬ 
cation  of  his  first  edition,  for  he  introduced  four  hundred 
more  alterations,  not  all  improvements,  in  the  second 
edition  of  1519.  For  this  he  used  a  Latin  MS.  known 
as  the  Codex  Aureus,  lent  him  by  Matthew  Corvinus, 
King  of  Hungary,  two  MSS.  from  the  Austin  Priory  of 
Corsendonk  near  Turnhout,  and  a  Greek  MS.  lent  him 
by  the  Monastery  of  Mount  St.  Agnes,  near  Zwolle. 
These  he  took  with  him  to  Basle  for  printing  the  second 
edition.1  When  in  Brussels  in  1520-21  he  consulted 
two  old  MSS.  at  the  library  of  St.  Donation;2  another 
he  found  at  the  Abbey  of  St.  James  at  Liege,  left  there 
in  the  fourteenth  century  by  Radulphus  de  Rivo.3  When 
at  last  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  was  released,  he 
also  compared  that.  For  a  special  text  he  had  his 
friend  Bombasius  look  up  the  Codex  Vaticanus.4 

This  text  was  the  famous  “comma  Johanneum,” 
or  the  verse  read  in  our  Authorized  Bibles  as  I  John  v:  7: 
“For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost:  and  these  three 
are  one.”  The  verse  is  an  interpolation,  first  quoted  and 
perhaps  introduced  by  Priscillian  (a.d.  380)  as  a  pious 
fraud  to  convince  doubters  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.5 
Not  finding  it  in  any  Greek  manuscript,  Erasmus  prop¬ 
erly  omitted  it;  for  this  honest,  practically  unavoidable 
conduct,  he  was  ferociously  attacked.  Finding,  from  the 
report  of  Bombasius,  that  the  Vatican  Codex  did  not 
have  it,  he  rashly  asserted  that  if  a  single  Greek  MS. 

1  Allen,  ii,  pp.  164  ff. 

*LB.  ix,  353. 

•A.  Roersch:  Humanisme  Beige ,  1910,  p.  8. 

4  LB.  ix,  353,  and  Allen,  ep.  1213. 

6  W.  R.  Nicoll:  The  Expositor’s  Greek  Testament,  1910,  vol.  v,  p.  195. 
S.  Reinach:  Orpheus ,  English,  1909,  p.  239.  Houtin:  La  Question  biblique  au 
XIXme  siecle ,  p.  220.  E.  Gibbon:  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
Bury’s  edition,  chapter  xxxvii. 


ERASMUS 


1 66 

could  be  found  containing  it  he  would  insert  it.  The 
required  authority  was  soon  found  in  the  Codex  Mont- 
fortianus  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  which  was,  in  all 
probability,  manufactured  entire  for  this  express  pur¬ 
pose.1  Though  Erasmus  suspected  the  truth,  and  frankly 
expressed  in  a  note  the  belief  that  the  verse  had  been 
supplied  from  the  Latin,  he  inserted  it  in  his  third 
edition  (1522)  “that  there  be  no  occasion  for  calumny,”2  ’ 
Thus  the  forged  verse  was  put  back  into  the  Greek  to 
be  kept  there  until  the  nineteenth  century.  Though 
omitted  in  the  German  version  by  Luther,  it  was  put 
into  the  German  Bible  after  his  death,  and  is  found  in 
every  other  important  translation  of  the  Scriptures  before 
the  nineteenth  century.  It  is  still  retained  as  a  proof- 
text  in  Protestant  creeds,3  while  the  Roman  Catholic 
Congregation  of  the  Index  has  forbidden  any  question 
of  its  authenticity.4 * 

Erasmus  detected  two  other  important  early  interpo¬ 
lations,  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark’s  gospel  and  the 
passage  about  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  (John  vii: 
53— viii :  1 1 ) .  Though  he  retained  them  in  his  text,  he 
honestly  noted  that  the  former  passage  was  doubtful 
and  that  the  latter  was  lacking  in  the  best  author¬ 
ities.  His  other  changes  were  slighter.  The  form  in 
which  he  left  the  text  was  little  improved  by  the  labors 
of  Beza  and  Estienne  in  the  sixteenth  century.  The 
edition  of  1633,  differing  little  from  his,  became  known 
as  the  “textus  receptus,”  and  was  not  substantially 


1  Such  is  the  opinion  of  Caspar  Rene  Gregory;  cf.  Biblical  World  (Chicago), 
April,  1911,  p.  256.  E.  Nestle:  Introduction  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament ,  English  trans.,  1901,  p.  5,  thinks  that  the  forger  was  the  English 
Franciscan,  Roy.  I  do  not  know  his  reasons  for  this  opinion,  which  seems  to 
me  not  very  probable. 

2  LB.  ix,  353. 

8  E.g.  in  the  Westminster  Catechism ,  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  published 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  chaps,  ii,  iii.  Schaff: 
Creeds  of  Christendomy  1877,  iii,  608;  R.  E.  Thompson:  History  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church ,  1895,  p.  257.  The  proposal  for  revision  was  rejected  in  1893. 

4  Decree  of  January  13,  1897;  C.  Mirbt:  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des 

Papsttums ,8  1911,  no.  540,  quoting  from  the  Acta  Sanctae  Sedis. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


167 

castigated  until  the  labors  of  Tischendorf,  and  of  West- 
cott  and  Hort,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  restored  the 
original  on  really  scientific  principles. 

Though  Erasmus  claimed  that  his  notes  to  the  text 
should  not  be  considered  as  a  commentary,  they  fall, 
in  their  copiousness  and  variety,  little  short  of  being 
such.  By  pointing  out  how  necessary  it  is  to  have  details 
correct  before  going  on  to  sublimer  matters,  he  apologized 
for  the  attention  \  aid  to  minutiae.  As  it  is  in  small 
points,  he  thinks,  that  theologians  err,  and  as  Christ 
has  averred  that  no  jot  or  tittle  should  pass  away,  it  is 
necessary,  even  at  the  cost  of  much  pains,  to  examine 
each  word  carefully.1  Thus  it  is  that  every  obscure 
word  detains  him  for  a  moment,  though  at  times  he 
has  little  better  to  offer  than  an  anecdote  or  a  joke.2 

The  new  Latin  translation3  elucidated  as  much  as 
did  the  annotations.  Many  of  his  corrections  were 
stylistic,  as  the  substitution  of  “cum  vidissent”  for 
“videntes,”  in  Mark  ii:i6,  on  which  he  observed,  “It 
is  strange  that  such  a  solecism  should  have  been 
used  when  the  Greek  gave  no  occasion  for  it.”  Again, 
where  the  Vulgate  translates  Peter’s  words  (Matthew, 
xvi:i8),  “Absit  a  te,”  Erasmus  puts,  “Propitius  sit 
tibi,”  and  noted  that  “Propitius  sit  tibi  Deus”  would 
be  closer  to  the  thought.  Language  is  so  nearly  related 
to  thought  that  some  simple  corrections  of  this  sort 
had  a  wide  bearing.  Such  was  the  substitution  of 
“sermo,”  in  John  i:i,  for  the  Vulgate  “verbum,”  the 
word  “sermo”  having  the  connotation  of  rational  dis¬ 
course  found  in  the  Greek  ?.oyog.  In  Matthew  iii:2,  and 
elsewhere,  the  Greek  fieravoelre  was  translated  in  the 
Vulgate  “penitentiam  agite,”  a  phrase  more  than 
ambiguous  on  account  of  the  Latin  having  but  one 
word  for  the  two  distinct  ideas  of  “repentance”  and 


1  Introductory  epistle,  Allen,  ep.  373. 

*  Cf.  his  note  on  SevrepoTTpurog,  Luke  vi:i.  His  New  Testament  is 
reprinted  in  LB.,  vol.  vi. 

3  Also  published  separately  in  1519  and  often.  Preface  in  Allen,  ep.  1010. 


i68 


ERASMUS 


“penance.”  The  Vulgate  version  might  mean  either 
“repent  ye,”  or  “do  penance,”  and  had,  of  course, 
been  usually  taken  by  the  Catholic  doctors  in  the 
latter  sense,1  and  had  become  a  powerful  support  to 
the  sacramental  system.  Rejecting  this  old  translation, 
Erasmus  proposed  “  Resipiscite,”  or  “Ad  mentem  redite,” 
“Be  mindful,”  or  “Come  to  yourselves.”  The  leaven  of 
this  new  rendering  worked  so  powerfully  in  Luther’s 
mind  that  it  became  the  starting  point  of  the  Reformation 
and  thus  leavened  the  whole  loaf  of  Christendom.2 

Fine  literary  criticisms  in  the  notes  and  in  other 
writings  in  many  cases  anticipate  the  conclusions  of 
later  research.  There  was  no  hesitation  in  discriminating 
between  the  several  books  of  the  Bible.  In  the  first 
place,  he  greatly  preferred  the  New  Testament,  “where 
all  is  clear,  plain  truth,  and  where  nothing  savors  of 
superstition  and  cruelty,  but  all  is  simplicity  and  gentle¬ 
ness,”3  to  the  mysteries  of  the  Old  Testament,  where 
truth  is  sometimes  covered  up  in  apparently  indecent 
and  silly  fables.4  How,  he  asks,  could  all  the  animals 
get  into  the  ark?  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  story 
of  Creation,  of  Samson,  of  the  threats  in  Deuteronomy 
xxvii,  of  the  minute  regulations  about  leprosy  and  food — 
conducive  rather  to  superstition  than  to  true  piety? 
These,  he  thinks,  can  only  be  explained  as  allegories.  - 
In  the  Enchiridion  he  had  written,  “Choose,  in  especial, 
those  interpreters  who  depart  as  far  as  possible  from 
the  letter.”5  But  in  later  life  he  came  to  regard  the 
letter  as  more  important  and  to  save  the  allegories  for 
moralizing  otherwise  incomprehensible  or  offensive  por- 

1  Cf.  the  first  of  Luther’s  Ninety-five  Theses;  also  T.  More’s  Confutation  of 
Tyndale,  Workes,  1557,  p.  41 8H.  In  the  Douai  version  of  the  Bible  fierdvoia 
is  rendered  “penance.” 

2  Luther  himself  so  spoke  of  the  verse,  quoting  Erasmus’s  translation. 
Resolutiones,  1518,  Werke ,  Weimar,  i,  530. 

3  Ecclesiastes,  1535,  LB.  v,  1028  f;  cf.  1043  ff. 

4  LB.  v,  870. 

5  LB.  v,  29BCD.  On  Erasmus’s  interpretation  of  the  Bible  cf.  C.  Beard: 
The  Reformation  in  Its  Relation  to  Modern  Thought  and  Knowledge ,  1883, 
p.  120  f,  150. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


169 

tions  of  the  Holy  text.  Even  in  the  Enchiridion  he  had 
said  that,  if  one  kept  only  to  the  literal  sense,  he  might 
as  well  read  Livy  as  the  Book  of  Judges.  In  one  of  the 
Adages /  of  the  edition  of  1515,  he  expressed  himself 
as  follows: 

If  in  the  Old  Testament  you  see  nothing  but  history,  and  read 
that  Adam  was  made  from  mud,  that  his  little  wife  was  unobtrusively 
drawn  from  his  side  while  he  slept,  that  the  serpent  tempted  the 
little  woman  with  forbidden  fruit,  that  God  walked  in  the  cool  of 
the  evening,  and  that  a  guard  was  placed  at  the  gates  of  Paradise 
to  prevent  the  fugitives  returning,  would  you  not  fancy  the  whole 
thing  a  fable  from  Homer’s  workshop?  If  you  read  of  the  incest 
of  Lot,  the  whole  story  of  Samson,  the  adultery  of  David,  and  how  the 
senile  king  was  cherished  by  a  maiden,  would  that  not  be  to  chaste 
ears  repulsively  obscene?  But  under  these  wrappings,  good  Heavens! 
what  splendid  wisdom  lies  concealed. 

The  fact  is  that  Erasmus’s  treatment  of  the  Bible 
was  the  most  rational  possible  in  the  light  of  the  then 
available  knowledge.  If  a  passage  yielded  a  clear 
historical  or  plain  moral  meaning  as  it  stood,  he  took 
it  literally.  Only  if  it  were  repugnant  either  to  reason 
or  to  ethics  in  its  literal  sense  was  a  figurative  inter¬ 
pretation  employed.  The  great  lack  of  the  exegete  of 
that  day  was  the  idea  of  development,  of  an  evolution 
from  a  primitive  to  a  higher  ideal  of  religion  and  duty. 
Nowadays  it  is  obvious  even  to  the  Sunday-school 
scholar  that  the  same  conception  of  God  and  the  same 
ethical  code  cannot  be  expected  in  a  Bedouin  tribe 
wandering  in  the  desert  in  the  time  of  Homer,  and  in 
the  most  enlightened  members  of  a  polished  empire  in 
the  age  of  Augustus.  But  this  key  for  unlocking  the 
mysteries  of  the  Hebrew  literature  was  as  yet  undis¬ 
covered.  Assuming  that  the  whole  of  Scripture  was 
inspired  and  dictated  by  the  same  divine  personality, 
the  sixteenth-century  philosopher  could  no  more  admit 
the  imperfections  of  the  Mosaic  code  than  Plato  could 
allow  for  the  unedifying  theology  of  Homer.  With  the 


1  “ Sileni  Alcibiadis,”  LB.  ii,  773. 


170 


ERASMUS 


stubborn  material  and  the  stark  premises  at  his  com¬ 
mand  Erasmus  did  the  best  possible. 

Among  the  New  Testament  writers  he  also  had  his 
favorites.  The  principal  works  he  thought  to  be  the 
Gospels,  Acts,  First  Peter,  First  Epistle  of  John,  and 
the  Pauline  Epistles  except  Hebrews.1  He  said  that 
Matthew  was  probably  originally  written  in  Hebrew,2 
that  Mark  was  an  abridgment  of  Matthew,3  and  that 
Luke  was  not  an  eyewitness.4  He  repeated  the  opinion 
of  Jerome  that  Clement  of  Rome  was  very  likely  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.5  James  he  thought 
lacking  in  apostolic  majesty.  He  could  easily  believe 
that  the  heretic  Cerinthus  was  the  writer  of  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse.  Ephesians  was  Pauline  in  thought  but  not  in 
language. 

Rarely  did  Erasmus’s  comments  lead  him  far  into 
the  field  of  dogmatic  theology.  Perhaps  the  most 
notable  exception  to  this  general  rule  was  the  note,  that 
filled  two  finely  printed  folio  pages,  on  Romans,  v:i2, 
“Wherefore  since  sin  entered  the  world  through  one 
man.”  By  way  of  examining  the  opinion  of  the  fathers 
as  to  the  meaning  of  this  text,  he  canvassed  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin,  taking,  himself,  the  common-sense  and 
humane  view  that  however  detrimental  Adam’s  dis¬ 
obedience  had  been  to  his  posterity,  it  certainly  did 
not  involve  them  all  in  his  guilt.  In  this  he  was  obliged 
to  argue  against  Augustine.  In  other  places,  however, 
where  an  opportunity  offered  to  go  into  speculative 
theology,  Erasmus  usually  declined  it.  The  note,  for 
example,  on  “The  just  shall  live  by  faith”  (Romans,  i:  17), 
the  verse  which  played  so  momentous  a  role  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  century,  was  confined  to  a  mere  comparison 

1  LB.  v,  1049. 

2  LB.  ix,  86. 

3  LB.  vi,  151E,  217C. 

4  LB.  vi,  218D. 

6  LB.  v,  56C.  Cf.  Allen,  ep.  1 172:  “  By  many  arguments  one  may  conjecture 
that  it  (the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews)  is  not  Paul’s,  for  it  is  written  in  a  rhetorical 
rather  than  in  an  apostolic  style.” 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


171 

of  the  readings  of  the  Hebrew  and  Septuagint  in  the 
words  of  Habakkuk  quoted  by  Paul. 

While  abstract  divinity  left  Erasmus  cold,  the  practi¬ 
cal  application  of  a  text  to  the  criticism  of  some  abuse  in 
the  Church  always  filled  him  with  ardor.  For  example,  the 
words,  “Thou  art  Peter  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  found 
my  church, ”  had  commonly  been  taken  as  the  charter 
of  the  papal  primacy,  but  Erasmus  pointed  out  the 
difficulty  of  applying  them  directly  to  the  pope  instead 
of  to  the  whole  body  of  Christians.  Many  another  abuse 
and  misapplication  of  Scripture  was  glanced  at,  but 
what  drew  down  his  most  trenchant  blows  were  scandals 
arising  from  monasticism  and  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy. 
How  terrible  are  his  words  on  that  favorite  text  of  the 
monks:  “Some  have  made  themselves  eunuchs  for  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven’s  sake.” 

In  this  class  [says  he]  we  include  those  who  by  fraud  or  intimi¬ 
dation  have  been  thrust  into  that  life  of  celibacy  where  they  are 
allowed  to  fornicate  but  not  to  marry,  so  that  if  they  openly  keep 
a  concubine  they  are  Christian  priests,  but  if  they  take  a  wife  they 
are  burned.  In  my  opinion  parents  would  be  much  kinder  to  castrate 
their  children  than  to  expose  them  whole  against  their  will  to  this 
temptation  to  lust. 

Again,  commenting  on  I  Timothy,  iii :  2,  which  pro¬ 
vides  that  a  bishop  shall  be  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
he  ridiculed  in  no  gentle  terms  those  who  torture  the 
text  to  explain  away  its  obvious  meaning,  as  for  example, 
those  who  understand  “wife”  to  mean  “church,”  or 
those  who  claim  that  the  apostle  desires  to  prohibit  a 
man  who  has  ever  had  more  than  one  wife  from  being 
a  bishop,  and  went  on: 

The  priest  guilty  of  unchastity  is  allowed  to  become  a  bishop, 
so  is  the  murderer,  the  pirate,  the  sodomite,  the  blasphemer,  the 
parricide,  and  who  not?  Only  he  who  has  had  two  wives  [in  suc¬ 
cession]  is  excluded  from  this  honor.  It  is  remarkable  how  grimly 
we  hold  on  to  some  things  and  connive  at  others.  If  anyone  will 
consider  our  present  condition,  how  large  a  part  of  mankind  is 
included  in  the  herds  of  monks  and  colleges  of  priests,  and  will 
then  observe  how  few  of  these  are  chaste,  into  what  various  lusts 


172 


ERASMUS 


countless  numbers  deviate,  how  shamelessly  and  openly  and  im¬ 
pudently  they  flaunt  their  vices,  he  will  perhaps  think  it  more 
expedient  that  those  who  cannot  be  continent  should  be  allowed  to 
marry  publicly,  as  they  could  do  without  shame,  purely  and  sacredly, 
rather  than  that  they  should  be  stained  with  such  miserable  and 
base  lusts. 

In  the  note  on  Matthew  xi:^0,  “My  yoke  is  easy 
and  my  burden  is  light/’  he  went  so  far  in  the  discussion 
of  the  many  faults  of  the  ecclesiastical  system  that  the 
passage  reads  like  a  propagandist  pamphlet  rather  than 
a  commentary,  and  the  author  himself  felt  obliged  to 
apologize  for  it.1  Here  he  severely  scored  the  innumer¬ 
able  human  institutions  which  had  grown  up  and  choked 
the  pure  “philosophy  of  Christ,”  such  as  the  speculations, 
bordering  on  impiety,  about  the  nature  of  the  Trinity, 
the  superstitions  connected  with  the  sacraments  and 
various  religious  rites,  the  regulations  in  the  canon 
law,  and  the  claims  of  the  preachers  of  indulgences! 

So  it  is  plain  that  Erasmus  saw  the  import  of  his  work, 
and  did  not  draw  back  from  making  the  practical  appli¬ 
cation.  But  to  all  who  read  the  notes  as  a  whole  it  is 
clear  that  the  writer’s  immediate  and  constant,  if  not 
ultimate  and  dominating,  aim  was  to  construe  the  text 
accurately.  In  such  a  book  this  is,  of  course,  as  it  should 
be.  Erasmus  performed  the  task  with  great  success; 
his  really  explanatory  and  clarifying  comments  are  a 
refreshing  contrast  to  the  interminable  subtleties  woven 
around  the  letter  by  the  schoolmen.  In  fact,  it  is  hard 
to  say  whether  they  won  their  greatest  success  as 
learning  or  as  literature.  Of  late  they  have  been  re¬ 
printed,  as  most  other  notes  on  texts  are  printed,  at 
the  foot  of  the  page,  but  then  they  were  printed  in  a 
separate  volume,  in  attractive  type  and  style,  and  there 
is  no  doubt  that  they  were  widely  read  by  themselves. 
Practically  they  constituted  another  pamphlet  in  favor 

1  The  note  is  found  in  LB.  vi,  63.  It  is  partially  translated  by  Bludau,  p.  54, 
and  by  Humbert,  p.  209  ff,  and  in  my  Age  of  the  Reformation,  pp.  58  f.  Denifle 
makes  the  significant  remark  that  it  is  first  found  in  the  edition  of  1519,  thus 
perhaps  showing  the  influence  of  Luther. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  173 

of  the  Erasmian  reform  and  of  the  philosophy  of  Christ. 
They  were  not  forbidding  and  difficult,  like  modern 
commentaries  which  no  one  except  a  scholar  can  under¬ 
stand,  they  were  chatty  and  companionable,  full  of 
anecdote  and  wit,  and  under  it  all  an  earnest  purpose 
and  the  best  liberal  instruction  to  be  found  in  matters 
of  faith  and  piety.  It  was  a  novel  and  a  fruitful  idea 
at  that  time  as  it  would  be  now  to  turn  a  work  of  biblical 
erudition  into  a  best  seller!  To  support  his  own  position 
he  introduces  his  humanist  allies,  Hutten  and  Colet, 
along  with  Augustine  and  Jerome,  and  marshals  them 
all  against  those  children  of  darkness,  the  magistri 
nostri.  Both  his  success  and  the  animosity  he  aroused 
were  explained  partly  by  the  perfection  of  his  style  and 
still  more  by  the  fact  that  he  was  the  first  to  look  at 
the  Bible  and  at  religion  in  a  human,  rational  way,  to 
prefer  the  spirit  to  the  form.  Against  Eck  he  maintained 
that  a  poor  Greek  style  and  even  small  inaccuracies 
due  to  faults  of  memory  were  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  inspiration  of  the  whole.1  Against  Colet  he  main¬ 
tained  that  Christ’s  agony  in  the  garden  was  due  to  a 
purely  human  apprehension  of  the  terrible  suffering  in 
store  for  him.2  The  purpose  of  Christianity  was  to  show 
love  embodied  in  the  person  of  Jesus  and  enshrined  in 
the  New  Testament.  His  introduction  pointed  out, 
in  beautiful  words,  that  this  was  the  whole  value  of 
the  book:  “If  anyone  shows  us  a  relic  of  Christ’s  clothes 
we  fall  down,  adore  and  kiss  it,  but  it  is  only  the  gospels 
and  epistles  that  efficaciously  bring  back  to  us  the  whole 
Christ.” 

The  Preface  to  the  New  Testament  was  later  expanded 
into  a  work  on  The  Method  of  Theology ,  and  published 
separately  in  15 19. 3  It  proves  what  has  just  been  said 
about  the  author’s  rational  treatment  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  After  recommending  a  good  life  and  reverence 


1  Allen,  ep.  844. 

2  Allen,  epp.  109-m. 

3  LB.  v,  73  ff. 


174 


ERASMUS 


as  prerequisite  to  a  fruitful  study  of  divinity,  he  pleads 
for  a  better  knowledge  of  the  original  tongues  as  the 
foundation  on  which  should  be  built  a  superstructure 
of  dialectic,  rhetoric,  arithmetic,  music,  physics,  cosmog¬ 
raphy,  and  history.  In  theology  proper  the  first  place 
is  to  be  given  to  exegesis,  in  which  the  ancient  fathers 
are  to  be  preferred  as  authorities  to  the  modern  com¬ 
mentators,  while  dogmatics,  Church  history  and  dis¬ 
cipline,  civil  and  ecclesiastical  law,  and  ethics  are  all 
to  follow.  Certain  rules  on  method  proper  are  added, 
as,  for  example,  the  correct  formula  for  interpreting 
figurative  language  in  the  Scriptures  and  the  recom¬ 
mendation  to  learn  some  passages  by  heart. 

The  Greek  Testament,  once  out,  met  with  a  mixed 
reception.  Prolonged  applause  from  the  liberals  mingled 
with  the  hoots  of  the  conservatives.  Instinctively 
feeling  that  the  work  would  need  protection,  Erasmus 
dedicated  it  to  Leo  X,  at  the  same  time  requesting  his 
friend,  Bombasius,  to  get  a  formal  breve  approving 
publication.1  As  this  was  forthcoming,  the  editor  was 
able  to  appeal  to  the  approval  of  the  pope  in  his  sub¬ 
sequent  dealings  with  his  critics.  Some  of  them  were 
inclined  to  blame  Leo  for  having  lauded  a  work  which,  in 
the  words  of  one  of  them,  “has  brought  forward  opinions 
on  confession,  on  indulgence,  on  excommunication,  on 
divorce,  on  the  power  of  the  pope  and  on  other  questions, 
which  Luther  only  had  to  take  over — save  that  Erasmus’s 
poison  is  much  more  dangerous  than  Luther’s.”2  Never¬ 
theless,  Leo’s  successor,  Adrian  VI,3  approved  in  his 
turn  and  even  urged  Erasmus  to  do  for  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  what  he  had  done  for  the  new.  After  the  Council 
of  Trent  had  authorized  the  Vulgate  and  had  condemned 
Erasmus,  Cardinal  William  Sirleto  made  an  elaborate 

1  Leo  to  Erasmus,  September  io,  1518,  Allen,  ep.  864;  Erasmus  and 
Bombasius,  Allen,  epp.  865,  905. 

sAleander  to  Cardinal  de’  Medici,  Worms,  February  28,  1521,  Deutsche 
Reichstags akten  unter  Karl  V ,  hg.  von  A.  Kluckhohn  und  A.  Wrede,  ii,  523  f, 
P.  Kalkoff:  Die  Depeschen  des  Nuntius  Aleander ,2  1898,  p.  108. 

*  LB.  ix,  764.  Adrian  “then  a  cardinal.” 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


i75 

defense  of  the  old  Latin  version  against  the  criticisms 
of  Valla  and  Erasmus.1 

From  most  of  his  English  friends  Erasmus  received 
hearty  praise.  Far  from  being  shocked  by  the  liberties 
taken  with  the  Vulgate,  Bishop  Fisher  was  inclined  to 
wish  that  the  translation  had  been  freer.2  Thomas 
More  wrote  epigrams  in  honor  of  the  work,  vigorously 
defended  it  against  several  assailants,  and  recommended 
it  to  Cardinal  Wolsey.3  Colet  wrote  the  editor  in  the 
following  terms:4 

I  understand  what  you  say  in  your  letter  about  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  The  copies  of  your  edition  are  eagerly  bought  and  everywhere 
read  in  this  country.  Many  approve  and  admire  your  work;  some 
also  disapprove  and  carp  at  it  .  .  .  but  these  latter  are  men  whose 
praise  is  blame  and  whose  blame  is  praise.  For  my  part,  I  love  your 
work  and  welcome  this  edition  of  yours.  .  .  .  Do  not  stop,  Erasmus, 
but,  now  that  you  have  given  us  a  better  Latin  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  illustrate  it  also  with  expositions  and  full  commentaries 
on  the  Gospels.  Length  wTith  you  is  brevity.  The  appetite  will 
grow,  if  the  digestive  powers  be  healthy,  in  reading  what  you  have 
written.  If  you  unlock  the  meaning — as  none  can  do  better  than 
yourself — you  will  confer  a  great  benefit  on  the  lovers  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  will  immortalize  your  name.  Immortalize,  do  I  say? 
The  name  of  Erasmus  will  never  perish;  but,  besides  bringing 
eternal  glory  on  your  name  you  will  now,  in  toiling  for  Jesus,  win 
for  yourself  life  everlasting. 

The  opposition  in  England,  just  spoken  of,  was  strong 
enough  to  cause  the  book  to  be  prohibited  at  Cambridge 
soon  after  its  appearance.  The  conservatism  of  the 
human  mind,  and  particularly  of  the  theological  mind, 
is  such  that  it  almost  always  retches  at  anything  new 
and  strange.  When  the  old  proof-texts  are  gone,  it 

1  H.  Hoepfl:  Kardinal  Wilhelm  Sirlets  Annotationes  zum  Neuen  Testament. 
Eine  Verteidigung  der  Vulgata  gegen  Valla  und  Erasmus ,  nach  ungedruckten 
Quellen,  1908.  Biblische  Studien ,  Band  xiii,  no.  2.  The  date  of  Sirleto’s  work 
was  1549. 

2  Allen,  ep.  481. 

3  More  to  a  Theologian,  published  in  Jortin’s  Life  of  Erasmus ,  1760,  ii, 
670-99.  The  epigrams  in  praise  of  the  New  Testament,  one  of  which  was 
written  in  a  copy  presented  by  Erasmus  to  W  olsey,  are  found  in  T.  Mori 
Opera ,  1689,  p.  253. 

4  Allen,  ep.  423. 


ERASMUS 


176 

seems  as  if  theology  must  crumble,  and  those  who  love 
theology  promptly  take  alarm.  Every  version  of  the 
Scriptures,  every  serious  and  important  criticism,  from 
the  Septuagint  to  the  English  Revised  Version  of  1881, 
has  had  to  run  the  gauntlet  of  those  who  said,  “the  old 
wine  is  better.”  Erasmus  ridiculed  these  fossils  in  a 
lively  letter,  comparing  them  to  the  old  priest  who, 
owning  a  breviary  with  the  typographical  error  “mumpsi- 
mus”  instead  of  “sumpsimus”  at  a  certain  point  in 
the  mass,  became  so  accustomed  to  the  nonsensical 
form  that  he  refused  to  change  it  when  the  error  was 
pointed  out  to  him,  and  kept  on  mumbling  “mumpsi- 
mus”  to  the  end  of  his  days.1 

Because  of  the  omission  of  the  verse  on  the  Three 
Heavenly  Witnesses,  and  other  similar  changes  that 
seemed  to  put  the  mark  of  doubt  on  favorite  texts, 
Edward  Lee,  a  rising  diplomatist  and  theologian,  later 
Archbishop  of  York,  attacked  the  Greek  Testament. 
Lee  says  that  while  he  was  at  Louvain  Erasmus  had 
come  to  his  house  and  asked  for  aid  in  revising  the  New 
Testament  and  that,  when  he  had  suggested  many 
corrections,  Erasmus  was  piqued.2  Lee  then  wrote  down 
his  criticisms,  which  were  copied  by  Erasmus’s  friend 
Martin  Lipsius,  and  sent  to  the  humanist.  As  the 
rumor  of  Lee’s  impending  attack  thickened,  Erasmus 
forestalled  it  by  a  counter-attack  in  his  Apologia  against 
James  Latomus ,  and  also  by  threatening  Lee  with  a  book 
which  he  said  the  Germans,  a  ferocious  people,  were 
preparing  against  him.  Notwithstanding  these  precau¬ 
tions,  and  the  intervention  of  More,  of  Bishop  Richard 
Foxe  of  Winchester,  of  Martin  Lipsius,  and  of  Richard 
Pace,  Lee  published  his  polemic  in  January,  1520. 3 
The  Dutch  scholar,  always  sensitive,  was  wounded 
to  the  quick,  and  even  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
mediation  of  his  friends  had  been  insincere.  To  Lipsius 

1  Allen,  ep.  456. 

2  F.  A.  Gasquet:  The  Eve  of  the  Reformation ,  New  ed.,  1900,  pp.  154  f. 
E.  Leus:  Annotations  in  Novum  Testamentum  Erasmi,  1520. 

3  Allen,  ep.  446,  July  15,  1519.  Cf.  Allen,  ep.  750,  to  Lipsius,  January,  1518. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


1 77 


he  wrote:  “Lee  acts  with  you  as  a  lion  with  a  lamb.  .  .  . 
Would  that  you  had  not  given  him  those  other  letters. 
.  .  .  I  trust  him  less  than  a  cacodemon.”  Again,  for¬ 
getting  the  tremendously  high  praise  he  had  always  given 
to  England,  he  wrote  the  same  friend  that  Lee’s  criti¬ 
cisms  had  made  him  hate  Britain  more  than  ever,  though 
she  had  always  been  pestilent  to  him.1  His  suspicions  of 
Pace  were  perhaps  justified,  for  the  latter,  notwith¬ 
standing  his  unfortunate  attempt  at  mediation  in  1520, 
had  already  published  a  work  blaming  Erasmus  and 
More  for  misspelling  certain  words  and  ridiculing  the 
former  for  his  poverty.2  When  Lee’s  notes  came  out, 
Erasmus  promptly  answered  them,3  though  he  also 
wrote  that  nothing  sillier  had  ever  appeared.4  As  a 
further  means  of  humiliating  his  adversary  he  inspired 
his  friends  at  Erfurt  to  publish  a  volume  of  Epigrams5 
in  which  Lee  was  called  a  son  of  Cerberus  and  of  a  Fury, 
from  whom  he  had  inherited  his  envious,  infernal  bark, 
a  second  Herostratus,  a  disease  like  gout,  and  whatever 
else  the  luxuriant  imagination  of  the  poets  could  think 
of.  Erasmus  also  collected  letters  of  his  own  admirers 
which  expressed  disparaging  opinions  of  Lee,  and  pub¬ 
lished  them  in  a  separate  volume.6 

Another  critic,  Henry  Standish,  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph, 
attacked  Erasmus  in  an  oration  at  St.  Paul’s  Church 
Yard,  London,  for  changing  “verbum”  into  “sermo,” 
in  John  i:  1.  Against  him,  also,  as  “Bishop  of  St.  Ass,” 

1  Allen, ep. 899.  November,  1518.  Erasmus  toFoxe,  asking  him  to  intervene. 
Allen,  ep.  973.  More’s  letters  to  Lee,  Jortin,  ii,  646-662. 

2  De  Fructu  qui  ex  doctrina  percipitur,  1517.  Abstract  of  this  work  in  Jortin, 
ii,  351  ff.  Cf.  further,  Allen,  ep.  350;  1097,  1098,  1099,  1100,  and  LB., 
App.  ep.  275. 

3  Ad  notationes  Ed.  Lei.  LB.  ix,  123  ff. 

4  Allen,  ep.  1126. 

6 In  Edzvardum  Leeum  Ouorundam  e  Sodalitate  Erphurdiense  Erasmiei 
nominis  studiosorum  Epigrammaia,  May,  1520.  C.  Crause:  Hess,  1879,  i,  306. 

6  Epistolae  aliquot  eruditorum  virorum  ex  quibus  perspicuum  quanta  sit  Ed. 
Lei  virulentia.  Basle,  1520.  Cf.  Jortin,  ii,  371,  496  ff.  G.  Kawerau:  Brief- 
tvechsel  des  J.  Jonas,  1883,  epp.  37,  41.  Enthoven,  ep.  3  (perhaps  forwarding 
some  of  the  letters).  Lupset  to  Lee,  Oxford,  March  30  (1520),  printed  in 
Knight’s  Life  of  Erasmus,  1726,  Appendix,  no.  26,  p.  82. 


ERASMUS 


178 

Erasmus  published  an  apology.1  The  foolishness  of  his 
opponents  was  often  the  butt  of  his  wit.  For  example, 
he  recounts  how  a  certain  divine  had  attacked  the  study 
of  Greek,  but  on  being  closely  questioned  by  More  in 
the  presence  of  Henry  VIII,  admitted  that  all  he  knew 
of  it  was  that  it  was  derived  from  Hebrew.  Of  similar 
caliber  was  the  Dominican  who  tried  to  persuade  Queen 
Catharine  that  it  was  very  wrong  of  Erasmus  to  correct 
the  books  of  the  wise  and  holy  Jerome,  as  though  he 
knew  more  than  the  saint. 

In  France  the  New  Testament  found  less  favor  than 
in  England.  This  was  in  part  due  to  an  unfortunate 
controversy  between  its  editor  and  the  man  at  the  head 
of  French  liberal  theology.  As  Lefevre  d’Etaples  was  at 
Paris  in  the  years  1504-05,  Erasmus  must  have  met  him 
then,  but  their  correspondence,  glowing  with  mutual 
admiration  and  friendship,  did  not  begin  until  1 5 14.2 
The  occasion  for  the  breach  was  the  proposal  of  Lefevre, 
in  his  Commentary  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  (1512),  to 
change  the  reading  of  Hebrews  ii:  7,  from,  “Thou  hast 
made  him  [Christ]  a  little  lower  than  the  angels,”  to, 
“Thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than  God.”  When 
Erasmus  rejected  this  emendation  in  his  notes  to  the 
New  Testament,  Lefevre  replied  in  the  second  edition 
of  his  own  work  (1517)  that  “this  assertion  that  Christ 
is  not  a  little  lower  than  God,  and  yet  is  below  the 
lowest  man,  we  refute  energetically  as  impious  and 
most  unworthy  of  Christ  and  of  God.”  Stirred  by  this 
charge  of  impiety,  Erasmus  published  an  Apology ,3 
though  he  felt  terribly  sorry  to  be  forced  to  take  issue 
with  his  old  friend,  and  would  have  preferred  to  write 
a  volume  in  his  praise  rather  than  a  short  pamphlet 
in  refutation  of  him.4 

1  LB.  ix,  95. 

a  Allen,  ep.  315. 

8  Apologia  adv.  Fabrum  Stapulensem ,  1518,  LB.  v,  17  ff.  Bibliotheca  Belgica , 
s.  v.  Allen,  ep.  597.  Cf.  Nichols,  ii,  pp.  586,  601  f. 

4  Allen,  ep.  652.  c.  September  7,  1517.  For  his  change  Lefevre  had  the 
authority  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  Psalm  viii:4.  See  English  Revised  Version. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


179 


So  distasteful  was  the  quarrel  that  he  did  his  best 
to  avert  its  further  course  by  turning  to  common  friends, 
Glarean1  and  William  Bude,  to  mediate.  Bude’s  some¬ 
what  curt  refusal  caused  a  strain  in  their  relations, 
which  was  perhaps  increased  by  mutual  jealousy,  for 
Bude,  though  not  so  great  a  writer,  was  a  profounder 
student  than  was  Erasmus.  The  Hollander  revenged 
himself  in  a  characteristic  way,  by  publishing  their 
correspondence2  followed  by  a  letter  from  the  distin¬ 
guished  Christopher  Longueil  to  a  certain  James  Luke 
expressing  surprise  that  King  Francis  I  should  prefer 
Erasmus  to  Bude,  “a  German  to  a  Frenchman,  a 
foreigner  to  a  citizen,  a  stranger  to  an  acquaintance.’’ 
The  climax  of  this  witty  but  disingenuous  attack  on  the 
French  scholar  was  a  letter  from  Erasmus  to  Longueil 
stuffed  with  transparently  sarcastic  praise  of  Bude. 

In  the  meantime  the  quarrel  with  Lefevre  remained 
unappeased,  notwithstanding  a  very  friendly  letter  from 
Erasmus  to  his  rival  begging  that  a  mere  difference  of 
opinion  should  not  make  them  enemies.3  Indeed,  he 
greatly  regretted  the  altercation.  “Everyone,”  he 
wrote,  “German,  Italian,  and  English,  congratulates 
me  on  conquering  that  Frenchman,  but  they  cannot 
make  me  hate  my  victory  less.”4  That  Erasmus  had 
the  better  of  the  controversy  was  in  fact  the  opinion  of 
impartial  contemporaries.  Luther,  for  example,  though 
in  general  he  preferred  Lefevre,5  and  though  he  regretted 
the  strife  between  these  two  princes  of  learning,  judged 
that  in  this  case  the  Dutchman  conquered  and  spoke 
the  better.6 

1  Allen,  ep.  7 66. 

*  In  the  Farrago  of  October,  1519.  The  letters  are  reproduced  in  their 
original  order  in  Lond.  iii,  51-63.  The  artful  arrangement  of  the  letters  is  of 
course  destroyed  by  chronological  redistribution.  The  letters,  in  this  order, 
are  in  Allen,  epp.  778,  810,  906,  723,  915,  930,  924,  929,  954,  914,  935.  Cf. 
also  Allen,  ep.  ion,  1015. 

8  Allen,  ep.  814,  April  17,  1518. 

4  Allen  ep.  794.  Cf.  also,  epp.  675,  659. 

8  Enders,  i,  88.  March  1,  1517.  L.  C.  ep.  30. 

•  Enders,  i,  143.  January  18,  1518.  L.  C.  ep.  47. 


i8o 


ERASMUS 


The  altercation  with  Lefevre  was  a  mere  pin-prick 
compared  with  the  severe  chastisement  administered 
to  Erasmus  by  his  old  enemies  of  the  Sorbonne.  Noel 
Beda  was  aroused  by  the  invitation  to  all  men,  even 
the  laity,  to  read  the  Scriptures.1  A  debate  on  the 
new  translations  of  Erasmus  and  Lefevre  was  proposed 
in  the  faculty  of  theology.  When  one  Dominican  had 
the  temerity  to  assert  that  the  Vulgate  was  very  faulty 
he  was  so  harshly  reprimanded  that  he  promptly  declared 
he  had  only  advanced  the  obnoxious  opinion  in  order 
to  provoke  a  discussion.  After  a  formal  examination, 
the  learned  faculty  condemned  all  new  Latin  versions 
of  the  Bible,  mentioning  those  of  Erasmus  and  Lefevre 
by  name.2  The  grounds  for  this  decision  were  set  forth 
by  Peter  Sutor  in  a  pamphlet.3 

A  savage  attack  came  from  Spain.  James  Lopez  de 
Stunica,  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot, 
perhaps  stimulated  by  jealousy,  prepared  with  extraor¬ 
dinary  speed  165  notes  on  Erasmus’s  New  Testament, 
and  showed  them  to  Cardinal  Ximenes,  for  approval.4 
As  this  was  not  granted,  the  publication  of  the  attack 
was  delayed  until  Ximenes’s  death.  Erasmus  frankly 
admitted  that  he  had  learned  much  from  Stunica;  he 
nevertheless  published  an  apology  against  the  calumnies 
of  this  too  virulent  critic.5 

As  Louvain  was  the  center  of  old-fashioned  scholasti¬ 
cism,  it  was  natural  that  the  Erasmian  Testament 
should  there  excite  considerable  opposition,  most  of 
which,  however,  developed  after  the  beginning  of  the 
Lutheran  revolt.  Even  before  its  publication  one  of 
the  Louvain  Professors,  Martin  Dorp,  had  begged  the 

1  LB.  ix,  456. 

8  Humbert:  Origines  de  la  theologie  moderne,  1911,  pp.  207  f.  L.  Delisle: 
Notice  sur  un  Registre  des  Proces-Verbaux  de  la  Faculte  de  theologie  a  Paris, 
1899,  p.  56. 

1  De  Tralatione  Biblice  et  Novarum  Reprobatione  interpretationum ,  1525. 

4  Bludau,  op.  cit.,  125  ff.  J.  L.  Stunica:  Annotations  contra  Erasmum  in 
defensionem  tralationis  Novi  Testamenti,  1519.  Allen,  iv,  623  ff. 

6  In  J.  Lopim  Stunicam  non  admodum  circumspectum  calumniatorem  apologia. 
LB.  ix,  283. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


181 


editor  to  consider  carefully  the  expediency  of  trying  to 
improve  the  version  sanctified  by  long  use;  and  had 
quoted  in  this  connection  Augustine’s  words,  “I  would 
not  believe  the  gospel  but  for  the  authority  of  the 
Church.”  The  answers  given  by  More  and  Erasmus, 
however,  finally  converted  this  opponent  into  a  friend 
and  supporter.1 

But  it  was  in  Germany  that  the  work  had  its  greatest 
immediate  influence.  There,  as  elsewhere,  some  offence 
was  taken  by  the  conservatives;  John  Eck,  for  instance, 
professor  at  Ingolstadt  and  a  pillar  of  the  Church,  was 
scandalized  by  the  opinion  of  Erasmus  that  the  Greek 
of  the  apostles  was  not  so  good  as  that  of  Demosthenes, 
and  that  the  Evangelists  occasionally  made  mistakes.2 
Another  backward-looking  scholar,  Augustine  Alfeld, 
attacked  Erasmus  for  translating  xe%apLrco[j,£VYi  “gra- 
tiosa,”  instead  of  “gratia  plena,”  as  in  the  Vulgate, 
Luke  i:  28.3 

But  among  the  liberals  the  work  was  applauded  and 
studied.  Ulrich  Zasius,  the  jurist  of  Freiburg  in  the 
Breisgau,  celebrated  the  “clearer  sense  and  better  Latin” 
of  Erasmus’s  version.4  On  the  men  later  to  be  Reformers 
the  influence  of  the  work  was  incalculable.  Wolfgang 
Capito  studied  it  carefully.  CEcolampadius  had  assisted 
in  the  preparation  of  the  text  and  now  expressed  high 
approval  of  it.  Melanchthon  praised  it  as  divinely  guided 
and  happy  in  its  issue  in  fulfilling  the  author’s  purpose 
to  improve  studies  and  dispel  darkness  and  the  vanity  of 
many  errors  by  the  rising  sun  of  truth.5  Ulrich  Zwingli 
bought,  transcribed,  and  annotated  a  copy  with  his  own 
hands.6  Andrew  Bodenstein,  called  Carlstadt,  thought 
the  editor  “the  prince  of  theologians,”7  and  studied  the 

1  Allen,  epp.  304,  337,  347,  338. 

2  Allen,  epp.  769,  844. 

*  L.  Lemmens:  A.  Alfeld ,  1899,  p.  79,  n.  3. 

4  Udalrici  Zasii  Epistolae ,  ed.  J.  A.  Riegger,  1774,  i,  288.  Hexastich  to 
Erasmus’s  New  Testament,  1516. 

5  Declamatio  de  Erasmo,  Corpus  Reformaiorum ,  xi,  264  (1557). 

6  Z.  W.,  i,  61;  iii,  208. 

7  0.  Seitz:  Der  authentische  Text  der  Leipziger  Disputation ,  1908,  p.  41. 


182 


ERASMUS 


text  with  a  zeal  that  sometimes  outran  knowledge.1 
Doubtless  many  of  the  minor  Reformers,  of  all  stripes 
and  shades,  perused  the  labors  of  Erasmus  and  profited 
by  them.2 

On  Luther,  the  richest  nature  and  the  most  indepen* 
dent  character  among  the  Reformers,  it  is  perhaps 
worth  while  to  trace  the  influence  more  in  detail,  for 
it  will  explain  much  in  the  history  of  Protestantism. 
We  can  see  what  an  immense  stimulus  the  work  gave 
to  the  Saxon  monk’s  development,  and  yet  how  even 
from  the  first  there  is  traceable  an  undertone  of  suspicion 
and  hostility  which  became  more  pronounced  with 
years.  At  the  time  of  the  New  Testament’s  appearance 
Luther  was  lecturing  on  Romans,  using  as  his  chief 
guide  the  edition  of  Lefevre  d’  Etaples.  He  apparently 
secured  the  new  edition  at  the  earliest  possible  moment, 
and  from  that  time  forth,  beginning,  namely,  with  the 
ninth  chapter  of  the  epistle,  he  took  Erasmus  as  his 
chief  authority  in  exegesis.3 

The  Erasmian  influence  on  Luther’s  exegesis,  perhaps 
under  the  stimulus  of  Melanchthon’s  praise,  rose  to 
its  height  in  the  Commentary  on  Galatians,  first  given  as 
university  lectures  in  1516-17,  and  then  published  in 
1519.  Not  only  was  the  Dutch  scholar  often  quoted 
directly,  but  the  whole  angle  of  presentation  was  the 
humanistic  and  literal  instead  of  the  scholastic  and  allego¬ 
rical.  A  little  later,  however,  the  more  deeply  religious 
interest  came  to  its  own  and  inevitably  the  clear  human 


1  In  the  text  tovt6  egtiv  to  aupa.  pov  (this  is  my  body,  Matthew,  xxvi:26) 
Carlstadt  argued  that  Christ  could  not  mean  that  the  bread  was  his  body 
because  tovto  was  neuter  whereas  aprog  was  masculine.  See  Preserved  Smith: 
A  Short  History  of  Christian  Theophagy ,  1922,  p.  127. 

2  At  Cornell  there  is  a  copy  of  the  first  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  with 
the  statement  that  it  was  bought  for  J.  Salandronius  at  the  fair  at  Chur  on 
St.  Paul’s  Day,  1517.  Salandronius,  or  Salzmann,  was  a  minor  Swiss  Reformer, 
a  friend  of  Zwingli. 

3  Ficker:  Luthers  Vorlesung  uber  den  Romerbrief,  Leipzig,  1908.  Preserved 
Smith:  Life  and  Letters  of  Martin  Luther ,  23  ff.  Preserved  Smith:  “Luther’s 
Development  of  the  Doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  Only,”  Harvard 
Theological  Review,  1913. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


183 

method  of  Erasmus  was  less  followed.  In  the  edition  of 
the  Commentary  on  Galatians  published  in  1523  all 
references  to  Erasmus  were  suppressed,  and  in  the 
lectures  on  the  same  Epistle  given  in  1531  the  older 
scholar  was  mentioned  only  to  be  refuted.1  Indeed, 
by  this  time  Luther  had  purchased  the  fourth  edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament  (Basle,  1527)  and  no  less  than 
470  marginal  notes  in  his  own  hand  embody  an  extremely 
unfriendly  criticism  of  the  editor.2 

Though  many  of  Luther’s  specific  judgments  on 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  those  on  the  Epistle 
of  James  and  on  the  Apocalypse,  are  but  echoes  of 
Erasmus,  or  developments  of  his  thought  in  stronger 
form,  he  found  in  time  the  rational  method  of  the 
humanist  so  distasteful  to  him  that  he  wished  that  this 
scholar  would  abstain  from  treating  the  Scriptures,  for 
his  only  service  was  to  introduce  a  knowledge  of  the 
tongues,  while  to  sound  the  deeper  meaning  of  the 
truth  was  beyond  his  power.3  Finally,4  he  came  to 
see  in  the  whole  critical  method  with  its  “thus  Augustine 
reads,”  “thus  Jerome  understands,”  only  a  stamping  of 
doubt  on  the  most  precious  passages  of  the  Word  of 
God  and  a  fostering  of  skepticism. 

But  the  most  important  service  of  the  Greek  Testa¬ 
ment  has  yet  to  be  mentioned.  It  was  the  fountain 
and  source  from  which  flowed  the  new  translations  into 
the  vernaculars  which  like  rivers  irrigated  the  dry  lands 
of  the  mediaeval  Church  and  made  them  blossom  into 
a  more  enlightened  and  lovely  form  of  religion.  There 
had,  indeed,  been  previous  translations  into  several  of 

1  Luthers  Vorlesung  uber  den  Galaterbrief  1516-17 ,  hg.  Hans  von  Schubert, 
1918.  Commentary  on  Galatians,  Luthers  Werke,  Weimar,  the  lectures  of 
1519,  ii,  436  ff,  with  special  references  to  Erasmus  on  pp.  452,  476,  508,  598, 
601.  The  lectures  of  1531,  ibid.,  vol.  xl.  On  this  see  G.  Ellinger:  Philipp 
Melanchthon,  1902;  A.  Humbert:  Origines  de  la  theologie  moderns,  1911,  pp. 
*47  £ 

8  Luther studien  zur  4  J ahrhundertfeier  der  Reformation,  1917,  p.  244.  The 
book  is  at  the  Library  of  the  University  of  Groningen,  Holland. 

*  L.C.  ep.  591. 

4  Conversations  with  Luther,  pp.  hi  f. 


ERASMUS 


184 

the  modern  languages,  but  they  had  all  been  made  from 
the  Vulgate,  and  to  the  errors  of  that  version  the  poor 
scholarship  of  the  translators  had  added  a  number  of 
others.  It  was  not  until  the  Greek  text  was  published 
that  a  really  scholarly  rendering  was  possible.  Erasmus 
himself  foresaw  the  use  to  which  his  work  would  be 
put  and  cordially  approved  of  it.  In  the  first  edition 
of  15161  he  says:- — 

I  vehemently  dissent  from  those  who  would  not  have  private 
persons  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  nor  have  them  translated  into  the 
vulgar  tongues,  as  though  either  Christ  taught  such  difficult  doctrines 
that  they  can  only  be  understood  by  a  few  theologians,  or  the  safety  of 
the  Christian  religion  lay  in  ignorance  of  it.  I  should  like  all  women 
to  read  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  Would  that  they  were 
translated  into  all  languages  so  that  not  only  Scotch  and  Irish, 
but  Turks  and  Saracens  might  be  able  to  read  and  know  them. 

In  the  preface  to  the  third  edition,  dated  Basle, 
January  14,  1522, 2  Erasmus  expanded  this  passage,  in 
beautiful  words  expressing  his  wish  that  all  might  come 
to  Christ  and  drink  of  the  Gospels. 

Some  think  it  an  offence  to  have  the  sacred  books  turned  into 
English  or  French,  but  the  evangelists  turned  into  Greek  what 
Christ  spoke  in  Syriac,  nor  did  the  Latins  fear  to  turn  the  words 
of  Christ  into  the  Roman  tongue — that  is,  to  offer  them  to  the 
promiscuous  multitude. 

He  goes  on  to  wish  that  they  could  be  translated  into 
all  languages,  French,  English,  German,  and  Hindustani, 
for  it  is  both  indecorous  and  ridiculous  that  laymen  and 
women  should,  like  parrots,  repeat  their  Psalms  and  pater¬ 
nosters  in  Latin  which  they  do  not  comprehend.  .  .  . 

Like  St.  Jerome  I  think  it  a  great  triumph  and  glory  to  the  cross 
if  it  is  celebrated  by  the  tongues  of  all  men;  if  the  farmer  at  the 
plow  sings  some  of  the  mystic  Psalms,  and  the  weaver  sitting  at 

1  In  the  Paraclesis,  or  introduction  without  pagination.  I  quote  from  the 
copy  at  Harvard.  The  same  passage  in  the  edition  of  1519  in  the  British 
Museum  copy,  p.  8.  St.  Chrysostom  may  have  suggested  to  Erasmus  this 
passage  on  Bible-reading.  Cf.  his  Homily  35  on  Genesis  xii.  Migne,  Patrologia 
Graeco,  liii,  323. 

2  Lond.  xxix,  82.  Luther’s  New  Testament  was  not  out  yet. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


185 

the  shuttle  often  refreshes  himself  with  something  from  the  Gospel. 
Let  the  pilot  at  the  rudder  hum  over  a  sacred  tune,  and  the  matron 
sitting  with  gossip  or  friend  at  the  colander  recite  something  from  it. 

In  closing,  Erasmus  anticipates  Luther’s  catechetical 
labors  by  suggesting  that  children  be  given  regular 
instruction  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  obligation  of  their 
baptismal  vows,  and  that  books  for  the  purpose  should 
be  written  representing  Jesus  as  gentle  as  he  really  was. 

While  Erasmus  wrote  these  words  the  German  New 
Testament  was  being  completed.  It  was  translated  at 
the  Wartburg  from  the  Greek  edition  of  1519.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  the  Dutch  scholar’s  preface  to  that 
edition  first  suggested  the  enterprise  to  the  Reformer.1 
By  a  lucky  accident  it  was  the  best  of  all  the  Erasmian 
editions  and  the  translator’s  labors  show  constant,  almost 
incalculable,  use  of  the  lucubrations  of  his  predecessor.2 

The  next  year  saw  a  new  French  version,  made  by 
Lefevre  d’  Etaples,  who,  though  he  used  the  Latin  Vul¬ 
gate,  knew  the  Greek  from  other  sources,  and  did  not 
agree  with  all  of  Erasmus’s  readings,  was  unable  to 
ignore  the  work  of  his  rival. 

William  Tyndale,  who  had  probably  heard  Erasmus 
lecture  at  Cambridge,  printed  in  1525  at  Cologne  the 
first  English  New  Testament3  based  on  the  Greek  text, 
and  strongly  showing  the  influence  of  both  Erasmus 
and  Luther.  This  version  was  violently  attacked  by 
More,  in  a  Dialogue ,  on  the  ground  of  three  thousand 
supposed  errors,  among  them  the  use  of  the  words 
“congregation”  instead  of  “church,”  and  “elder”  in¬ 
stead  of  “priest.”  When  Tyndale  defended  himself  by 
showing  that  in  both  cases  he  had  but  followed  a  hint 

1  In  Luther’s  letter  to  Lang,  December  1 8,  1521,  where  he  first  speaks  of  his 
translation,  he  seems  to  have  Erasmus’s  words  in  mind.  Enders,  iii,  256; 
L.  C.  ep.  518. 

2  Momfret:  History  of  the  English.  Bible  (ed.  1906)  gives  in  parallel  columns 
selections  from  the  Erasmian  and  Lutheran  versions. 

3  It  is  strange  that  whereas  there  are  extant  several  earlier  printed  editions 
of  the  whole  or  parts  of  the  Bible  in  German  and  French  there  should  be  none 
in  English.  An  old  translation  there  was,  which  circulated  only  in  MS., 
attributed  to  Wyclif.  Cf.  A.  W.  Pollard,  Records  of  the  English  Bible ,  1911,  p.  I. 


ERASMUS 


1 86 

of  Erasmus  in  Latin,  “More’s  darling,”  Sir  Thomas 
replied  with  more  temper  than  force  that,  though  the 
translations  were  the  same  in  appearance,  yet  Tyndale’s 
was  informed  with  a  malicious  spirit  not  found  in 
Erasmus’s.1  At  the  same  time  More  professed  to  believe 
that  a  properly  executed  version  in  the  vulgar  tongue 
would  be  useful,  and  even  argued  liberally,  though,  to 
judge  from  the  later  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
erroneously,  that  the  Church  herself  attributed  infalli¬ 
bility  to  the  original  texts,  and  not  to  the  Vulgate.2 

The  Spanish  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  made 
by  Francis  de  Enzinas,  and  published  at  Antwerp  in 
1 543>  was  also  based  on  the  work  of  Erasmus.3 

Colet’s  request  that  Erasmus  should  follow  up  his 
editorial  work  with  an  extended  commentary  was 
answered  by  the  production  of  a  number  of  Paraphrases 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.4  In  this  full,  free, 
and  popular  form  the  author  felt  that  he  could  best 
exhibit  the  thought  of  the  inspired  writers.  All  the 
materials  at  his  command  were  skillfully  worked  into  a 
scheme  following  the  order  of  the  original  Scripture, 
while  immensely  expanding  and  beautifully  interpret¬ 
ing  it.  The  first  Paraphrase  to  be  completed  was 
dedicated  to  Cardinal  Domenico  Grimani,  on  Novem¬ 
ber  13,  1517.  The  four  Gospels  were  inscribed  to  four 
friendly  monarchs;  Matthew  to  the  Emperor  Charles 
V,5  Mark  with  an  introductory  letter  on  the  wickedness 
of  war,  to  Francis  I;  Luke  to  Henry  VIII;  and  John 
to  Ferdinand  of  Austria,  king  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia, 
and  later  emperor. 

1  Mores  Workes,  1557,  pp.  422,  425,  “Confutation  of  Tyndale’s  Answer.” 

2  Mori  Opera,  1689,  p.  296,  “Responsio  ad  Lutherum.” 

3  A.  Bonilla  y  San  Martin,  in  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii,  1907,  p.  428.  Enzinas's 
own  memoirs  do  not  speak  of  the  original.  Collection  des  Memoires  sur 
I'Histoire  de  Belgique,  2  vols.,  1862-3.  The  dependence  of  Enzinas  on  Erasmus 
was  noticed  by  the  seventeenth-century  scholar,  Richard  Simon,  quoted  by 
E.  Boehmer:  Spanish  Reformers ,  i,  140,  note  B. 

4  All  reproduced  in  LB.  vii.  Cf.  Allen,  epp.  710,  916,  956. 

6  Charles’s  letter  thanking  Erasmus,  dated  Brussels,  April  I,  1522,  printed 
in  Geldenhauers  Collectanea ,  ed.  Prinsen,  1900,  pp.  62  f. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


187 

The  Swiss  Reformer,  Leo  Jud,  translated  the  Para¬ 
phrases  on  the  Epistles  into  German  in  1523;  a  German 
version  of  those  on  the  Gospels  appeared  in  1530.  A 
Bohemian  version  of  the  Paraphrase  on  Matthew  appeared 
in  1542;  and  a  French  version  of  the  Epistles  in  1543. 
A  number  of  English  scholars  undertook,  in  1543,  with 
the  support  of  Queen  Catharine  Parr,  to  bring  out 
vernacular  translations;  the  Gospel  of  John  being 
intrusted  to  the  Princess  Mary.  The  Injunctions  of 
Edward  VI,  of  July  31,  1547,  ordered  that  the  clergy 
should  put  in  every  church  a  copy  of  the  Paraphrase  on 
the  Gospels — perhaps  the  only  part  of  the  whole  work 
as  yet  ready  in  English — and  that  every  parson  below 
the  rank  of  B.  D.  should  provide  himself  with  a  copy.1 
Under  Elizabeth  these  Injunctions,  with  slight  modifi¬ 
cations,  were  renewed. 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  what  popularity  the  Para¬ 
phrases  long  enjoyed.  The  purpose  of  the  author,  “to 
close  up  gaps,  to  soften  abrupt  transitions,  to  reduce 
the  confused  to  order,  to  smooth  out  involved  sentences, 
to  explain  knotty  points,  to  illuminate  dark  places,  to 
grant  Hebraisms  the  Roman  franchise,  in  short  to 
modernize  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  heavenly  orator  as 
he  is,”2  all  this  and  more  was  accomplished.  Here  was 
no  longer  a  crabbed,  pedantic,  artificial  interpretation 
of  the  text,  but  something  to  tell  men,  for  the  first 
time  in  that  new  age,  what  the  Bible  really  said  and 

1  Allen,  ep.  710,  introduction;  Gee  and  Hardy:  Documents  Illustrative  of 
English  Church  History,  pp.  421,  425;  Miscellaneous  Writings  of  T.  Cranmer, 
ed.  Parker  Society,  1846,  “Acts  of  Visitation  of  1548,”  ii,  155  ff,  499,  501. 
The  copy  of  the  book  at  the  Congregational  Library,  14  Beacon  St.,  Boston, 
Massachusetts,  has  the  title:  The  first  tome  or  volume  of  the  Paraphrases  of 
Erasmus  upon  the  newe  testamente.  Enprinted  at  London  ...  by  Edwarde 
Whitchurche,  January  31,  1548.  Translated  by  order  of  Queen  Catherine  Parr. 
Vol.  ii,  dated  August  16,  1549.  The  dedication  is  to  Edward  VI.  No  name  of 
translator  is  given.  A  letter  of  Queen  Catherine  Parr  to  Princess  Mary, 
September  20,  1544,  speaks  of  Mary’s  translation  as  just  completed  with  the 
help  of  Francis  Mallet.  Letters  of  Royal  and  Illustrious  Persons,  ed.  M.  H.  E. 
Wood,  1846,  iii,  180  f.  Nicholas  Udal’s  Preface  also  speaks  of  Princess  Mary’s 
work. 

s  Allen,  ep.  710. 


i88 


ERASMUS 


meant.  Most  of  them  rejoiced  in  the  dawning  light. 
A  few  found  even  the  Erasmian  eloquence  tame  after 
the  sublimity  of  the  sacred  text.  “It  is  dangerous  to 
try  to  be  more  elegant  than  the  Holy  Spirit,”  wrote 
Lefevre,  with  a  glance  at  the  Paraphrases ,  in  the  Intro¬ 
duction  to  his  French  New  Testament.1  “How  ridiculous,” 
thought  Luther,  “are  those  who,  for  the  sake  of  style, 
put  the  Bible  into  paraphrase!”2  “And,”  chimed  in 
Roger  Ascham,3  “Erasmus’s  Paraphrases ,  being  never 
so  good,  shall  never  banish  the  New  Testament.” 

^erminjard:  Correspondance  des  Rejormateurs  des  Pays  de  la  langue 
franfaise ,  i. 

2  Luthers  Werke ,  Weimar,  xlii,  2  (1544). 

3  Roger  Ascham:  The  Schoolmaster  (1563),  English  Works>  1761,  p.  289. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


MISCELLANEOUS  WRITINGS 

IN  an  age  of  great  editors  Erasmus  was  one  of  the  most 
prolific  as  well  as  one  of  the  ablest.  When  modern 
scholars,  who,  devoting  their  lives  to  the  study  of  one 
author,  or  a  few,  find  themselves  in  a  position  to  improve 
the  texts  first  published,  they  should  remember  how 
vast  and  how  virgin  a  field  invited  the  labors  of  their 
forbears.  At  that  time  it  seemed  more  important  to 
get  out  as  much  material  as  possible,  than  to  apply 
intensive  study  to  a  smaller  field.  Moreover,  the  diffi¬ 
culties  confronting  the  first  editors  were  greater  than 
those  met  wfith  to-day.  For  the  most  part  they  had  as 
sources  few  and  late  manuscripts,  often  the  work  of  poor 
copyists  unable  to  deal  with  the  harder  passages.  Greek 
and  Hebrew  quotations  in  Latin  manuscripts  were 
either  entirely  omitted  or  unintelligently  imitated;  even 
knotty  points  and  obscure  words  in  Latin  were  plausibly 
but  incorrectly  misread.  The  textual  emendations  of 
Erasmus  were  noteworthy;  he  corrected  four  thousand 
corruptions  in  the  text  of  Seneca  alone,  and  in  one  case 
at  least,  where  he  restored  auxesin  faciens  for  aures  in - 
ficiens  in  Augustine  he  showed  himself  equal  to  Bentley. 
In  general,  his  editions  of  the  fathers  were  superior  in 
quality  to  his  work  on  the  New  Testament.  His  sense 
of  style  was  keen,  however  much  his  knowledge  was 
occasionally  at  fault.  He  was  not  sure  whether  Irenaeus 
wrote  in  Latin  or  in  Greek,  and  he  repudiated  Chrys¬ 
ostom’s  Homily  on  the  Acts ,  now  known  to  be  a  genuine 
though  a  poor  work.  On  the  other  hand,  he  rightly 
declared  the  Opus  imperfectum  in  Matth&um ,  widely  cir¬ 
culated  under  the  name  of  Chrysostom,  to  be  an  Arian 

1S9 


190 


ERASMUS 


forgery.  The  most  serious  charge  brought  against  him 
as  an  editor  is  that,  in  order  to  give  authoritative  expres¬ 
sion  to  his  own  views,  he  published,  as  a  work  of  Cyprian, 
a  treatise  entitled  De  Duplici  Martyrio ,  composed  by 
himself.1  This  charge,  however,  though  supported  by 
eminent  authority,  must  be  regarded  as  disproved. 
If  the  pseudonymous  tract  were  really  from  the  pen 
of  the  great  scholar,  it  would  be  a  shock  to  find  him 
speaking  of  the  wars  of  Diocletian  against  the  Turks! 
Its  purpose,  to  show  that  one  could  be  a  martyr — i.e.  a 
witness  to  Christ,  not  only  by  blood  but  by  good  deeds — 
is  indeed  worked  out  in  thoroughly  Erasmian  style, 
with  many  parallel  passages  to  his  notes  on  the  New 
Testament.  Nevertheless,  it  is  quite  certain  that  it  was 
the  production  of  another  rational  pietist,  who  wished 
to  advance  the  evangelic  cause  by  fathering  his  own 
ideas  on  one  of  the  doctors  of  the  Church. 

Undoubtedly  the  Christian  writer  preferred  by  Erasmus 
was  Jerome.  Like  many  of  his  contemporaries2  he  was 
attracted  by  this  least  theological  of  theologians,  this 
man  of  the  world  among  saints,  this  pure  Latinist 
among  barbarians.  As  early  as  1500  he  thought  of 
bringing  out  an  edition  of  this  doctor,  for  reasons  thus 
stated : — 3 

My  mind  has  long  burned  with  incredible  ardor  to  illustrate  with 
a  commentary  the  Epistles  of  Jerome.  In  daring  to  conceive  so 

1  F.  Lezius:  Neue  Jahrbucher  fur  deutsche  Theologie ,  1895,  iv,  95-110, 
184-243.  A.  Harnack:  Chronologie  der  altchristlichen  Litter atur,  1904,  ii,  369. 
J.  A.  Faulkner:  Erasmus ,  The  Scholar ,  1907,  pp.  236  ff.  The  work  is  not  in 
the  Erasmian  edition  of  Opera  Cypriani ,  Basle,  1521  (at  Harvard).  It  is  said 
to  have  appeared  first  in  the  edition  of  1530.  I  have  read  it  in  an  edition 
published  at  Antwerp,  1568,  pp.  581  ff.  The  editor,  James  Pamelius  shows 
that  it  cannot  be  by  Cyprian,  and  says  that  Henry  Gravius  attributed  it  to 
Erasmus,  on  internal  evidence,  when  he  re-edited  Cyprian  in  1544.  See 
further  Allen,  ep.  1000. 

2  Jerome’s  popularity  is  shown  by  the  numerous  early  editions  of  his  works, 
than  which  none  are  more  often  met  with  in  second-hand  catalogues.  There 
was  an  Italian  translation  of  his  letters:  Epistole  de  sancto  Hieronymo  volgare, 
Ferrara,  1497,  and  a  French  one:  Les  Epistres  de  monseigneur  sainct  Hierosme 
en  franqoisy  Paris,  1520. 

8  Allen,  ep.  141;  Nichols,  ep.  134.  C.f.  Allen,  ep.  138,  and  ii,  pp.  210  f. 


EDITION  OF  JEROME  191 

great  a  design,  which  no  one  has  hitherto  attempted,  I  feel  that  some 
god  inflames  and  directs  my  heart.  I  am  moved  by  the  piety  of 
that  heavenly  man,  of  all  Christians  beyond  question  the  most 
learned  and  most  eloquent;  whose  writings,  though  they  deserve 
to  be  read  and  learned  everywhere  and  by  all,  are  read  by  few,  admired 
by  fewer  still  and  understood  by  scarcely  any.  ...  I  am  not 
unaware  of  the  audacity  of  my  presumption.  What  a  task  it  will 
be,  in  the  first  place,  to  clear  away  the  errors,  which  during  so  many 
ages  have  become  established  in  the  text.  What  a  mass  there  is 
in  his  works  of  antiquities,  of  Greek  literature,  of  history — and 
then  what  a  style,  what  a  mastery  of  language,  in  which  he  has 
left  not  only  all  Christian  authors  far  behind  him,  but  seems  to 
vie  with  Cicero  himself! 

As  time  went  on  Erasmus  felt  more  deeply  drawn  to 
Jerome  for  reasons  he  has  not  mentioned  here.  In  the 
hermit  of  Bethlehem  who  translated  the  Scriptures, 
who  cultivated  the  tongues,  who  loved  the  classics, 
who  cared  so  little  for  systematic  theology  and  so  much 
for  life,  he  saw  the  prototype  of  his  own  mind  and  the 
champion  of  the  “philosophy  of  Christ. ”  In  such 
respect  Jerome  was  a  perfect  contrast  to  Augustine,  the 
great  thinker,  the  explainer  of  God’s  ways,  the  asserter 
of  determinism  and  of  total  depravity.  There  have 
always  been  the  two  types  of  mind  in  the  Church.  The 
two  New  Testament  writers,  St.  Paul  and  St.  John,  who 
first  worked  over  the  simple  materials  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  represent  the  same  tendencies,  the  one  to  a 
hard  and  fast  system,  the  other  to  the  expression  and 
glorification  of  a  life.  Again,  fifteen  hundred  years  later, 
Erasmus  and  Luther  typified  the  same  diversity,  and 
Luther,  with  his  customary  insight,  detected  the  dif¬ 
ference  at  once.1 

I  do  not  doubt  [he  wrote]  that  I  differ  from  Erasmus  in  interpreting 
Scripture  because  I  prefer  Augustine  to  Jerome  as  much  as  he  in 
all  things  prefers  Jerome  to  Augustine.  .  .  .  The  reason  for  my 
preference  is  that  I  realize  that  Jerome  seems  even  intentionally 
to  descend  to  a  purely  historic  interpretation,  so  that,  strange  to 
say,  his  best  exegesis  of  Scripture  is  in  the  obiter  dicta  in  his  epistles 
and  elsewhere  rather  than  in  his  commentaries. 


1  Luther  to  Spalatin,  October  19,  1516.  Enders,  i,  63,  L.  C.  ep.  21. 


192 


ERASMUS 


The  dogmatic  Augustine  attracted  the  dogmatic 
Reformer;  the  humane  Jerome  the  humanist.  “I  have 
always  avoided  the  character  of  a  dogmatist,”  wrote 
Erasmus,  “except  in  incidental  admonitions  about 
improving  studies  and  about  human  judgment.”  He 
had  always  labored,  he  added,  to  bring  scholastic  theology 
back  to  its  sources.1  For  this  reason  he  often  expressed 
his  preference  for  all  the  ancient  fathers  as  against 
Aquinas  and  Scotus.  He  thought  the  rivulets  of  truth 
purer  as  they  approached  the  divine  spring. 

Hearing  that  the  Amerbachs  were  preparing  Jerome 
for  publication  by  Froben,  Erasmus  immediately  com¬ 
municated  with  them.  He  had  already  made  some  prep¬ 
arations  for  such  a  work,  and  about  1514  he  was 
appointed  editor-in-chief.  The  dedication  was  first 
intended  for  Warham,  then  for  Leo  X,  who  graciously 
accepted  it,  it  later  was  changed  back  to  Warham,  when 
the  New  Testament  was,  for  important  reasons,  inscribed 
to  the  pope.2  The  first  volume  came  out  in  1516,  and 
was  promptly  followed  by  the  others — nine  parts  in  all, 
variously  bound  in  four  or  five  tomes.  The  whole  was 
sold  at  the  reasonable  price  of  nine  gulden.3 

Jerome  was  but  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  doctors  of 
the  Church  to  receive  editorial  attention  from  the  scholar 
of  Rotterdam.4  At  various  times  he  published  either 
the  whole  or  large  parts  of  the  works  of  Algerus,  Ambrose, 
Arnobius,  Augustine,  Cyprian,  Eucherius,  Hilarius, 
Lactantius,  and  Prudentius,  among  the  Latins.  He 
edited  various  works  of  Athanasius,  the  first,  in  an 
old  Latin  translation,  in  1518.  Further  studies  came 
out  in  1527;  the  dedication  of  these  caused  the  editor 

1  Erasmus  to  Maldonato,  March  30,  1527.  Zeitschrift  fur  historische  Tkeologie, 
xxix,  1859,  p.  608.  Cf.  A.  Humbert:  Origines  de  la  theologie  moderne ,  pp.  228  ff. 

*  Allen,  epp.  308,  396,  333-335,  338.  339;  Nichols,  ep.  384,  April  1,  1516. 
A  preface  to  the  reader,  Allen,  ep.  326. 

*  Scheurls  Briefbuch,  ed.  Soden  und  Knaake,  1872,  ii,  13.  Scheurl  to  SpaHtin, 
April  1,  1517.  A  gulden,  fifty-six  cents,  had  a  much  greater  purchasing  power 
than  the  same  amount  of  gold  would  have  to-day. 

4  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  1893,  serie  ii. 


TRANSLATIONS  FROM  LUCIAN 


193 


some  thought,  before  he  chose  John,  Bishop  of  Lincoln, 
as  the  patron.1  Editions  or  Latin  translations  of  other 
Greek  fathers,  Basil,  Irenaeus,  Chrysostom,  Nazianzen, 
and  Origen,  appeared  in  course  of  time.  Erasmus  as 
a  critic  was  at  his  happiest  in  the  introductions  to  these 
authors.  While  he  differentiated  and  characterized 
them  with  unsurpassed  nicety,  he  rendered  a  genuine 
literary  service  to  the  Church,  doing  more  perhaps  to 
popularize  her  classical  texts  than  any  other  man  has 
ever  done. 

As  editor  and  interpreter  of  the  classics  Erasmus  was 
even  more  active  than  as  a  laborer  in  ecclesiastical 
fields.  No  sooner  had  he  mastered  Greek  than  he  began 
to  turn  his  knowledge  to  account  by  producing  Latin 
versions  of  the  Attic  and  Hellenistic  masterpieces.  A 
few  of  these  were  from  Euripides,  but  most  wrere  from 
that  scoffer  and  atheist  of  the  ancient  world,  the  Syrian 
Lucian.  For  ascertainable  reasons  Lucian  was  the 
most  popular  author  of  the  Renaissance.2  The  Italians 
Filelfo,  Guarino,  and  Poggio  had  been  among  his  first 
admirers  and  translators.  From  the  time  that  Rudolph 
Agricola  brought  a  taste  for  him  north  of  the  Alps,  he 
had  more  imitators  and  interpreters  than  any  other 
Greek  writer.  Thomas  More,  Pirckheimer,  Mosellanus, 
Ottomar  Luscinius,  and  Melanchthon  all  tried  their 
hands  at  versions  of  his  dialogues.3  His  strong  influence 
was  reflected  in  the  numerous  satires  of  the  age,  in  the 
Praise  of  Folly ,  and  in  the  works  of  Rabelais.  Indeed, 
what  appealed  to  the  keen  wits  of  the  Renaissance  was 
Lucian’s  satire  even  more  than  his  skepticism.  The 
Syrian  misanthrope  took  the  same  delight  in  mocking 
the  superstitions  of  paganism  that  Voltaire  found  in 

1  L.  C.  ep.  752.  Erasmus  to  Lewis  Ber,  January  26,  1527. 

2  J.  A.  Froude,  “Lucian,”  in  Short  Studies  in  Great  Subjects ,  iv,  216  ff.  R. 
Forster:  “Lucian  in  der  Renaissance,”  Archiv fur  Liter aturgeschichte,  xiv,  1886, 
pp.  337  ff. 

3  In  the  Leyden  Edition  of  Erasmus’s  works,  LB.  ep.  475,  is  a  preface  to 
Lucian’s  dialogues  Cynicus ,  N ecyomantia ,  and  Philopseudes ,  put  in  as  by 
Erasmus,  though  really  penned  by  T.  More.  See  Jortin,  Erasmus ,  ii,  746. 


194 


ERASMUS 


ridiculing  the  Christian  mysteries.  One  of  his  dialogues 
represents  the  poor,  impotent,  ridiculous  deities  of 
Greece  attending  a  debate  on  the  question  of  their  own 
existence,  at  Athens,  where  Damis  maintains  a  skeptical 
attitude  with  great  success,  while  his  orthodox  opponent, 
Timocles,  is  totally  unable  to  reply  to  his  arguments  save 
by  calling  him  blasphemer,  infidel,  and  villain.  Nor 
did  Christianity  escape  the  notice  of  Lucian,  who 
directed  his  jibes  against  “the  man  who  ascended  into 
heaven,”  and  against  Christian  dogmas  which  came 
to  his  notice.  Indeed,  there  is  extant  one  dialogue,  prob¬ 
ably  spurious,  but  perhaps  thought  by  Erasmus  to  be 
genuine,  directed  entirely  against  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
and  a  translation  of  this  very  work  under  the  title 
Lucian  on  Christ,  was  circulated  over  the  name  of 
Erasmus.1  This  was  probably  spurious,  but  renderings 
of  other  works  of  this  skeptical  author  even  such  as 
were  less  obnoxious  to  Christian  feeling,  brought  down 
on  the  humanist  the  suspicions  of  his  contemporaries, 
who  murmured  that  he  covered  his  own  opinions  under 
the  name  of  his  original  and,  in  the  guise  of  holiness,2 
mocked  all  things.  In  this  judgment  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  concur.  Erasmus  certainly  appreciated  and 
appropriated  as  his  own  all  the  satire  of  his  original  in 
as  far  as  it  was  directed  against  human  folly  and  super¬ 
stition,  but  it  is  equally  certain  that  he  stopped  short 
of  sanctioning  actual  infidelity.  The  age  was  one  of 
restless  movement,  inquiry,  and  satire.  All  old  values 
were  being  doubted,  and  the  Reformation,  which  was 
to  transmute  many  of  them,  was  at  hand. 

The  catholic  taste  of  Erasmus  found  much  to  enjoy, 
and  his  industry  much  opportunity,  in  bringing  forth 
the  works  of  the  ancients.  Books  were  the  world  he  lived 
in.  The  greatest  of  all  inventions,  in  his  judgment,  was 

1  According  to  a  saying  of  Luther  in  1542,  Melanchthon  had  this  dialogue, 
probably  in  manuscript,  as  we  know  nothing  else  of  it.  E.  Kroker:  Luthers 
Tischreden  in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung.  No.  569. 

2  So  Luther,  often,  e.g.,  Wrampelmeyer:  Tagebuch  des  Conrad  Cordatus,  nos. 
394,  1294,  1521. 


EDITIONS  OF  THE  CLASSICS 


i95 


printing,  the  instrument  of  learning  and  true  happiness. 
This  discovery  he  attributed  to  John  Fust,  the  grandfather 
of  his  friend  the  printer,  Peter  SchoefFer,1  though  he 
knew  that  others  disputed  it.  “This  almost  divine 
art,”  as  he  called  it,  was  chiefly  valuable  in  his  eyes  for 
giving  the  world  the  benefit  of  reading  the  classics,  or, 
at  least,  such  poor  fragments  of  them  as  were  left. 
“Let  us,”  he  passionately  exclaimed,  “keep  on  publishing 
them,  despite  those  who,  under  pretext  of  saving  religion, 
pollute  and  extinguish  all  elegant  learning,  though  their 
frantic  efforts  in  fact  only  make  their  victims  the  more 
illustrious.” 

True  to  his  own  principles,  Erasmus  edited  many 
of  the  classics,  among  the  Latins  Ausonius,  several  works 
of  Cicero,  Quintus  Curtius,  the  Historia  Augusta , 
Horace,  Livy,  Ovid,  Persius,  Plautus,  Pliny’s  Natural 
History ,  Seneca’s  tragedies,  Suetonius,  the  Mimes  of 
Publius  Syrus,  and  Terence;  among  the  Greeks,  either 
in  the  original  or  in  Latin  versions,  iEsop,  Aristotle, 
Demosthenes,  Euripides,  Galen,  Isocrates,  Josephus, 
Libanius,  Lucian,  Plutarch’s  minor  works,  Ptolemy,  and 
Xenophon.2 

The  passion  for  the  Athenian  and  Roman  poets  and 
philosophers  displayed  in  all  Erasmus’s  writings,  and 
the  imperial  command  of  them  exemplified  in  the  Adages , 
tell  the  same  tale  of  ardent  and  unremitting  study  as 
is  told  in  his  efforts  to  kindle  in  others  his  own  en¬ 
thusiasm.  By  letters,  by  assistance  of  all  sorts,  and 
occasionally  by  gifts,  he  initiated  others  into  his  own 
tastes.  There  is  in  the  library  of  my  friend,  Mr.  George 
Arthur  Plimpton,  of  New  York,  a  precious  volume  of 
Herodotus,  published  by  Aldo  in  1502.  It  has  an  in¬ 
scription,  in  the  first  owner’s  hand,  “Erasmi  sum,” 

1  Allen,  ep.  919,  preface  to  edition  of  Livy  gotten  out  by  Hutten,  dated 
February  23,  1519.  There  is  a  copy  of  this  work,  T.  Livius  Patavinus 
Historicus ,  .  .  .  ed.  Ulrico  de  Hutten,  Moguntiae,  SchoefFer,  1518-19,  at 
Wellesley  College,  with  manuscript  notes  wrongly  attributed  to  Melanchthon. 

2  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  1893,  serie  ii.  See  also,  on  the  translation  of 
Aisop:  Bibliotheca  Belgica:  (-dEsopus):  Fabulae  Petri  Aegidii,  1513. 


ERASMUS 


196 

to  which  some  admirer  has  added,  “Amicus  orbi  pe- 
renne,”  “Ever  the  friend  of  the  world.’’  A  further  note 
informs  us  that  Erasmus  gave  the  book  to  his  friend  the 
jurisconsult,  Antony  Clava,  who,  at  his  death  on  May  31, 
1529,  left  it  to  Livinus  Ammonius.  The  letter  accom¬ 
panying  the  gift,  dated  April  29,  1518,  is  extant.1  There 
is  also  in  existence,  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  P.  M. 
Barnard,  of  Tunbridge  Wells,  a  copy  of  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen’s  Carmina ,  published  by  Aldo  at  Venice,  1504, 
with  the  autograph  inscription  meaning:  “I  am  Eras¬ 
mus’s,  nor  do  I  change  my  master.”  When,  however, 
Martin  Lipsius  received  the  book  as  a  gift  he  wrote  in 
it,  “I  was  Erasmus’s  and  I  have  changed  my  master,” 
which  the  original  owner  capped  with  a  gracious  quo¬ 
tation  from  his  own  proverb,  “Nay,  I  did  not  change 
masters,  since  a  friend  is  another  self.”2 

As  the  political  writings  of  Erasmus  are  of  consider¬ 
able  importance  and  originality,  it  is  remarkable  that 
they  have  hitherto  been  so  little  noticed.3  The  most 
formal,  though  not  the  greatest,  of  them  was  The  Insti¬ 
tution  of  a  Christian  Prince ,4  written  for  and  dedicated 
to  Charles  V,  then  king  of  Spain  and  soon  to  be  emperor. 
This  essay  is  a  really  valuable  contribution  to  several 
branches  of  political  science.  To  be  appreciated,  the 
standpoint  of  the  author  must  be  compared  with  that  of 
his  contemporary  Machiavelli,  whose  Principe ,  printed 
in  1532,  was  perhaps  already  written.  The  Italian 
statesman  regarded  politics  as  totally  dissociated  from 

1  Allen,  ep.  841.  Mr.  Plimpton  bought  the  book,  which  I  have  seen,  from 
J.  E.  Hodgkin,  or  from  his  estate.  See  Historical  MSS.  Commission,  15th 
report,  1897,  Appendix,  part  ii,  p.  4. 

2  Letter  by  Prof.  J.  W.  Thompson,  in  the  New  York  Nation ,  May  17,  I9I9> 
p.  792;  Bodleian  Quarterly  Record ,  1917-19,  p.  61.  Various  allusions  to  the 
book  occur  in  Erasmus’s  correspondence  with  Lipsius. 

*  W.  A.  Dunning:  A  History  of  Political  Theories ,  3  vols.  1902  ff,  has  no 
word  on  Erasmus. 

4  Text,  LB.  iv,  561  ff;  preface  Allen,  ep.  393;  Nichols,  ep.  389.  See 
L.  Enthoven:  “Ueber  die  Institutio  Principis  Christiani  des  Erasmus,”  Neue 
Jahrhucher  fur  das  Ktassische  Alterium ,  etc.,  xxiv,  312  ff.  Extracts  from  the 
Institutio  have  just  been  published  by  the  Grotius  Society,  as  no.  1  of  a  series 
of  texts  for  students  of  international  relations. 


POLITICAL  WRITINGS 


197 


morals,  as  much  so  as  mathematics;  it  was  a  game  like 
chess  or  war  in  which  any  strategy  or  ruse  was  allowable. 
Erasmus  followed  Aristotle,  Plato  and  Aquinas  in 
making  politics  a  branch  of  ethics,  both  being  concerned 
with  the  actions  of  men,  the  one  in  a  public,  the  other 
in  a  private  capacity. 

What  were  Erasmus’s  sources  besides  the  Greeks  just 
mentioned,  and  the  obvious  one  of  the  Utopia ,  I  am 
unable  to  say.  There  were  a  large  number  of  political 
writings  in  the  Middle  Ages,  many  of  them,  like  the 
works  of  Occam,  being  concerned  chiefly  with  the 
proper  relation  of  Church  and  state,  and  others,  like 
Dante’s  Monarchia ,  with  proving  that  one  particular 
form  of  government  is  the  best.  Erasmus  does  not  con¬ 
cern  himself  with  either  of  these  questions  and  there  is  no 
proof  that  he  ever  studied  politics  thoroughly.  His 
essay  was  above  all  practical,  and  it  is  perhaps  super¬ 
fluous  to  look  for  sources  beyond  the  commonplaces  of 
the  schools  and  his  own  observation  of  the  needs  of  his 
country. 

After  recommendations  as  to  the  qualifications  de¬ 
sirable  in  elective  rulers  he  points  out  the  necessity  of 
education  for  any  ruler,  and  especially  for  a  hereditary 
prince.  The  object  of  this  education  should  be  to  teach 
him  that  his  main  duty  is  not  to  fight  the  Turks  or 
found  monasteries,  but  to  care  for  his  people.  The 
second  chapter  is  a  warning  against  flatterers,  though 
Erasmus  himself  is,  as  usual,  quite  liberal  with  his  praise. 
The  third  chapter  is  on  the  arts  of  peace.  The  first  of 
these  is  to  love  his  people;  but  to  do  so  in  an  enlight¬ 
ened  manner,  not  buying  popularity  with  largesses,  but 
caring  for  the  public  interests  by  the  skillful  appointment 
of  counsellors  and  by  attending  to  larger  concerns  in 
person,  for  nothing  is  more  regrettable  than  the  absence 
of  the  prince.  Among  the  arts  of  peace  Erasmus  natu¬ 
rally  gives  a  high  place  to  the  foundation  and  support 
of  schools  and  universities. 

Chapter  four  is  an  excellent  treatment  of  the  subject 


ERASMUS 


198 

of  taxation.  Imposts  should  be  as  light  as  possible,  and 
should  be  levied  solely  on  luxuries,  leaving  free  neces¬ 
sities  like  grain,  bread,  beer,  wine,  and  clothing,  but 
bearing  heavily  on  linens,  silks,  purple,  unguents,  and 
gems.  The  author  follows  up  this  economic  discussion 
by  a  brief  consideration  of  the  proper  beneficences  of  a 
prince,  his  duty  as  legislator,  as  appointer  of  officers,  as  a 
framer  of  treaties  and  alliances,  and  as  a  fostering 
patron  of  peaceful  industry.  The  last  chapter  is  a 
sermon  on  the  favorite  subject  of  the  wickedness  of  war, 
which  should  never  be  undertaken  against  a  Christian 
power  nor  rashly  even  against  the  Turks.  He  proposes 
that  if  dissentions  arise  the  contending  parties  resort  to 
arbitration  instead  of  arms.  “There  are  many  bishops, 
abbots,  learned  men,  and  grave  magistrates  by  whose 
judgment  these  things  might  be  far  more  decently  com¬ 
posed  than  by  murder,  pillage,  and  calamity  throughout 
the  world.”  For  this  suggestion  of  international  ar¬ 
bitration,  first  realized  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
Erasmus  had  a  predecessor  in  Pierre  Dubois  (1300)  one 
of  the  lawyers  of  Philip  le  Bel.1  But  as  he  had  probably 
never  read  this  lawyer’s  book  the  similarity  of  their 
suggestion  should  not  betray  us  into  imagining  a  con¬ 
nection  between  the  two  distinct  expressions  of  the  same 
idea. 

Pacifism  was  one  of  the  most  valuable,  as  it  was  one 
of  the  most  modern,  features  of  Erasmus’s  thought.  In 
season  and  out  of  season  he  was  always  urging  the  folly 
and  the  wickedness  of  international,  wholesale  homicide. 
“In  my  opinion,”  he  wrote,  “Cicero  was  right  in  saying 
that  an  unjust  peace  was  better  than  the  justest  war.”2 
And  again,  “I  do  not  condemn  every  war,  for  some  are 
necessary,  nor  do  I  taunt  any  prince,  yet  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  when  war  breaks  out  there  is  a  crime  on 


1  Cf.  E.  H.  Meyer:  Die  Staats —  und  Volkerrechtlichen  Ideen  von  P.  Dubois. 
1908. 

2  To  Peutinger,  L.  C.  i,  391;  Allen,  ep.  1156.  Very  early  he  expressed  the 
same  opinion,  Allen,  ep.  29. 


POLITICAL  WRITINGS 


199 


one  side  or  the  other,  if  not  on  both.”1  Even  war  on 
the  Turks,  he  urged  in  a  special  treatise,  did  not  please 
him  and  could  only  be  justified  on  the  plea  of  necessity.2 3 
To  give  his  ideas  general  expression  he  published,  at  the 
request  of  the  Burgundian  Secretary  of  State,  John  Le 
Sauvage,  for  the  conference  about  to  take  place  at  Cam- 
brai  in  March,  1517,  a  tract  entitled  The  Complaint  of 
Peace}  Chiefly  on  religious  grounds,  but  also  for  reasons 
of  ordinary  morality  and  of  expediency,  he  urged  the 
case  against  war.  Again  he  brought  forward  his  plan 
for  arbitration,  arguing  that  even  an  unjust  award,  now 
and  then,  would  be  less  injurious  to  the  aggrieved  party 
than  the  havoc  of  armed  conflict.  But  these  suggestions 
were  too  far  ahead  of  the  time  to  bear  immediate  fruit. 
Only  in  our  time  have  statesmen  come  to  appreciate  the 
old  humanist’s  contribution  to  the  cause  of  peace.4 

Next  to  pacifism,  republicanism  is  the  most  original 
and  valuable  element  of  Erasmus’s  political  thought. 
One  must  not  be  misled  by  the  adulation  he  now  and 
then  heaped  on  royal  patrons  into  thinking  that  he  fell 
in  with  the  general  tendency  of  the  Renaissance  and 
Reformation  to  exalt  monarchy  as  instituted  jure  divino. 
A  close  study  of  his  writings  will  show  that  he  differed 
from  Machiavelli  not  only  in  his  ideal  of  a  prince,  but  in 
his  ideal  of  government.  Nothing  is  more  untenable 
than  the  opinion,  recently  advanced,5  that  fundamentally 
both  the  Florentine  and  the  Rotterdamer  maintained  the 
same  thesis,  the  one  as  a  statesman,  the  other  as  a  man 
of  letters,  and  that  “both  forgot  only  one  thing,  the 
governed.”  Erasmus  saw  the  miseries  of  the  people  and 
the  folly  of  their  hereditary  rulers  more  plainly  than 
any  man  of  his  time.  He  often  was  reminded,  he  wrote 

1  To  Christopher  von  Schydlowitz,  August  27,  1528.  Horawitz:  Erasmiana 
i,  ( Sitzungsberichte .  .  .  .  Wien,  vol.  90),  p.  438. 

2  De  Bello  Turcico ,  LB.  v,  365. 

3  Querela  Pads ,  prefatory  letter  to  Philip  of  Burgundy,  Allen,  ep.  603. 
English  translation,  The  Complaint  of  Peace ,  published  by  Open  Court,  1917. 

4  J.  Bryce:  International  Relations,  1922,  p.  18. 

6  Imbart  de  la  Tour:  Origines  de  la  Reforme,  i,  556  ft. 


200 


ERASMUS 


Bude  in  prudent  Greek,  of  the  Horatian  verse,  “When 
the  kings  go  mad  the  people  are  smitten.”1  In  his 
Adages ,  especially  in  the  edition  of  1515,  a  bitter  hatred 
of  monarchy  is  expressed,  such  as  is  hardly  found  else¬ 
where  save  in  the  French  monarchomachs  of  St.  Bar¬ 
tholomew  and  of  the  Revolution.  Listen  to  this:2 

The  eagle  is  the  image  of  a  king,  for  he  is  neither  beautiful,  nor 
musical,  nor  fit  for  food,  but  he  is  carnivorous,  rapacious,  a  brigand, 
a  destroyer,  solitary,  hated  by  all,  a  pest  to  all,  who,  though  he  can 
do  more  harm  than  anyone,  wishes  to  do  more  harm  than  he  can. 

Or  this  :3 

In  all  history,  ancient  and  modem,  scarcely  in  several  centuries 
are  found  one  or  two  princes  whose  signal  folly  did  not  inflict  ruin 
on  mankind.  ...  I  know  not  whether  much  of  the  blame  of  this 
should  not  be  imputed  to  ourselves.  We  trust  the  rudder  of  a  vessel, 
where  a  few  sailors  and  some  goods  alone  are  in  jeopardy,  to  none 
but  skillful  pilots;  but  the  state,  wherein  the  safety  of  so  many 
thousands  is  bound  up,  is  put  into  any  chance  hands.  A  charioteer 
must  learn,  study,  and  practice  his  art;  a  prince  needs  only  to  be 
born.  Yet  government,  as  it  is  the  most  honorable,  so  it  is  the  most 
difficult,  of  sciences.  Shall  we  choose  the  master  of  a  ship  and  not 
choose  him  who  is  to  have  the  care  of  so  many  cities  and  so  many 
lives?  But  our  custom  is  too  long  established  to  be  subverted.  Do 
we  not  see  that  noble  cities  are  erected  by  the  people  and  destroyed 
by  princes?  that  a  state  grows  rich  by  the  industry  of  its  citizens 
and  is  plundered  by  the  rapacity  of  its  rulers?  that  good  laws  are 
enacted  by  representatives  of  the  people  and  violated  by  kings? 
that  the  commons  love  peace  and  the  monarchs  foment  war? 

The  guardians  of  a  prince  aim  never  to  let  him  become  a  man. 
The  nobility,  battening  on  public  corruption,  endeavor  to  make  him 
as  effeminate  as  possible  by  pleasure  lest  he  should  know  what  a 
prince  ought  to  know.  Villages  are  burnt,  fields  are  devastated, 
temples  pillaged,  innocent  citizens  slaughtered,  all  things  spiritual 
and  temporal  are  confounded,  while  the  king  plays  dice  or  dances, 
or  amuses  himself  with  fools,  or  wfith  hunting  or  drinking. 

Such  passages  might  be  multiplied.4  The  author  of 
these  sentiments  might  have  led  a  republican  revolt, 

1  Allen,  ep.  954.  “Quidquid  delirant  reges  plectuntur  Achivi.” 

2  Adagia,  “Scarabaeus  aquilam  quaerit,”  LB.  ii,  875. 

3  Adagia ,  “Aut  regem  aut  fatuum  nasci  oportet,”  LB.  ii,  106. 

4  Cf.  “Frons  occipitio  prior,”  Adagia,  LB.  ii,  77. 


POLITICAL  WRITINGS 


20 1 


had  the  times  been  ripe  and  his  own  character  as  decided 
in  action  as  it  was  bold  in  speculation.  However,  while 
he  saw  plainly  what  was  rotten  in  monarchy,  he  could 
hardly  frame  in  his  own  mind  a  practical  alternative. 
The  Peasants’  War  was  a  great  shock  to  him,  as  it  was 
to  Luther  and  to  other  liberals.  In  the  Adage  “Scara- 
baeus”1  after  one  of  the  fiercest  invectives  against  the 
monarch  who  “makes  the  whole  people  tremble,  the 
senate  subservient,  the  nobility  obedient,  the  judges 
obsequious,  the  theologians  silent,”  as  he  beats  down 
laws  and  customs,  humanity  and  justice,  Erasmus  adds: 

But  princes  must  be  endured,  lest  tyranny  give  way  to  anarchy, 
a  still  greater  evil.  This  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  experience 
of  many  states;  and  lately  the  insurrection  of  the  German  peasants 
has  taught  us  that  the  cruelty  of  kings  is  better  than  the  universal 
confusion  of  anarchy. 

Indeed,  Erasmus  had  no  very  high  opinion  of  the 
masses,  “that  fickle,  many-headed  monster,”  as  he  once 
called  the  people.2  Early  in  life  he  wrote:  “If  a  thing 
displease  the  vulgar,  that  is  a  presumption  in  its  favor,” 
and,  “truth  is  a  sharp  and  bitter  thing  to  the  vulgar.”3 
Nevertheless,  his  incisive  criticism  of  hereditary 
magistrates  bore  fruit,  in  the  various  fields  in  which  the 
seed  fell,  in  some  thirtyfold,  in  some  fiftyfold,  in  some  a 
hundredfold.  While  Grotius  blamed  his  pacifism,4  Sir 
Thomas  Elyot,  in  his  book,  The  Governour,  wrote,  “There 
was  never  boke  written  in  latine  that  in  so  lytle  a  portion 
contained  of  sentence,  eloquence,  &  vertuous  exhortation 
a  more  compendious  abundance,”  than  the  Institution 
of  a  Christian  Prince .5  Catharine  de’  Medici  had  a 
French  paraphrase  of  it  made  for  the  instruction  of  her 
sons;  and  the  author  cannot  be  blamed  if  these  boys 

1  LB.  ii,  871  ff.  The  passage  about  the  Peasants’  Revolt  was,  of  course, 
added  after  1525. 

2  LB.  ep.  655.  To  Albert  of  Mainz,  June  1,  1523. 

3  Allen,  ep.  63. 

4  H.  Grotius:  Warre  and  Peace ,  English  translation,  London,  1655,  Preface, 
unnumbered  page. 

6T.  Elyot:  The  Governour,  1880  (after  first  edition  of  1531),  i,  95. 


202 


ERASMUS 


grew  up  into  weaklings  and  degenerates.1  The  two 
antimonarchical  adages,  “Scarabaeus”  and  “The  king 
and  the  fool  are  born  such/’  were  separately  printed  and 
widely  circulated.  Luther’s  friend,  Spalatin,  translated 
the  latter  into  German,  adding  a  dedicatory  epistle  to 
Prince  Joachim  of  Anhalt,2  and  Luther’s  own  famous 
remark,3  that  “since  the  foundation  of  the  world  a  wise 
prince  has  been  a  rare  bird  and  a  just  one  much  rarer,  for 
they  have  usually  been  the  biggest  fools  and  worst 
knaves  on  earth,”  is  but  an  echo  of  Erasmus.  The 
truest  heirs  of  the  liberal  humanist,  however,  were  the 
French  monarchomachs,  who  in  the  Wars  of  Religion 
almost  anticipated  the  Revolution  by  two  centuries. 
Many  a  page  of  Mornay  and  of  Beza  and  of  Hotman 
and,  above  all,  of  La  Boetie,  bears  the  stamp  of  the 
writers’  careful  study,  during  the  impressionable  period 
of  youth,  of  the  two  adages  just  quoted.4 

Familiar  letters  were  then,  as  they  have  been  at  many 
periods  and  as  they  are  now,  one  of  the  recognized,  most 
carefully  cultivated,  and  most  popular  forms  of  literature. 
The  epistle  is  at  once  a  necessity,  a  comfort,  and  a  luxury. 
It  is  a  key  to  unlock  the  heart  and  to  open  a  treasury  of 
gentle  wisdom,  of  homely  sentiment,  of  keen  obser¬ 
vation,  and  of  criticism  of  life.  As  a  literary  form  it 
furnishes  infinite  variety,  patient  of  all  manners  save 
the  stilted  or  formal.  As  a  historical  source  it  com¬ 
bines  the  advantages  of  the  document  written  at  the  same 
time  as  the  events  described,  and  of  the  memoir  revealing 
the  writer’s  psychology  as  he  serves  up  the  facts  known 
to  him.  Even  the  simplest  missives  of  business,  friend¬ 
ship,  and  love,  written  by  common  men  and  women,  such 
as  those  recently  turned  up  by  the  hundred  in  the  Egyp- 

1  Chantilly:  Cabinet  des  Livres ,  1900,  i,  255.  The  MS.  is  entitled 
“Epitome  ou  Sommaire  du  traite  d’Erasme  de  Roterdam,  de  l’lnstitution 
d’ung  Prince  Chrestien  jusques  en  Peage  d’adolescence.”  It  was  made  in  the 
years  1553-4. 

2  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  “Adagia.” 

3  Luthers  Werke,  Weimar,  xi,  267  f,  1523. 

4  Preserved  Smith:  The  Age  of  the  Reformation,  1920,  pp.  588  ff. 


EPISTLES 


203 


tian  papyri,  are  fascinating.  The  polished  epistles  of 
Cicero  and  of  the  younger  Pliny,  the  sacred  epistles  of 
St.  Paul  and  of  St.  Jerome,  furnished  models  for  the 
humanists  who,  especially  in  Italy,  cultivated  no  style  of 
composition  more  assiduously  than  the  epistolary.  The 
teaching  of  Latin  prose  always  included  the  writing  of 
letters,  as  well  as  of  orations.  So  popular  was  this 
literary  form  that  it  furnished  a  mold  for  the  satire  of 
the  Obscure  Men  and  for  the  history  of  Peter  Martyr 
d’Anghierra. 

As  the  Opus  Epistolarum ,  the  bulkiest  of  all  Erasmus’s 
extant  works,  shows,  he  was  second  to  none  in  practicing 
the  art  of  letter-writing  and  in  keeping  his  correspond¬ 
ence  for  publication.  Indeed,  one  of  his  earliest  studies, 
written  for  an  English  pupil  about  1498,  first  pirated, 
then  published  by  the  author  himself  in  1521,  was  a 
treatise  on  letter-writing.1  “  I  judge  that  epistle  to  be  the 
best,”  he  says,  “which  is  furthest  from  the  vulgar,  un¬ 
learned  sort;  which  conveys  choice  sentiments  in  elegant, 
apt  words,  and  which  is  well  suited  in  style  to  the  argu¬ 
ment,  the  place,  the  time,  and  the  person  addressed.” 
The  author  adds  several  engaging  examples  of  the  best 
style  of  letter  writing,  partly  from  Pliny  and  Cicero, 
partly  of  his  own  composition,  these  latter  including 
an  amatory  epistle  to  a  girl,  and  several  letters  selected 
from  his  authentic  correspondence. 

His  friends  valued  his  epistles  highly  enough  to  keep 
them,  and  some  of  them  even  found  their  way,  in  manu¬ 
script  copies,  into  the  bookshops.  A  whole  code  of  his 
letters  was  bought  by  his  friend  Piso  at  a  bookstall  in 
Siena,  and  other  such  collections  came  back  to  the 
writer  at  different  times.2  Although  he  burned  these,  he 
himself  preserved  what  he  thought  worth  keeping,  even 
some  from  his  earliest  years,  and,  after  careful  editorial 
revision,  in  order,  as  he  expressed  it,  to  remove  the  aloes 
of  bitterness,  he  adopted  the  plan,  not  uncommon  among 

1  De  conscribendis  epistolis,  LB.  i,  343  ff,  Allen,  ep.  71 ;  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana. 

8  Allen,  ep.  1206. 


204 


ERASMUS 


Italian  humanists,  of  publishing  his  own  correspondence 
during  his  lifetime.  The  volumes  enjoyed  considerable 
popularity  among  his  contemporaries,  both  for  their  per¬ 
sonal  and  for  their  literary  interest,  and  they  are  to  us  of 
to-day  perhaps  the  best  part  of  the  humanist’s  work.1 
A  certain  number  of  his  important  letters  were  brought 
out  separately,  as  articles  now  are  printed  in  periodicals. 
The  first  group  to  be  published  were  the  four  of  May, 
1515,  to  Leo,  to  the  Cardinals  Grimani  and  Riario,  and 
to  Dorp  in  defense  of  the  Moria.  These  came  out  in 
Damiani  Elegia ,  Froben,  August,  1515.  In  the  following 
year,  while  staying  at  Antwerp  with  his  intimate  friend, 
Gilles,  Erasmus  had  twenty-one  letters  printed,  three  of 
the  previous  four  and  eighteen  others  to  and  from 
famous  men — Leo  X,  Warham,  Ammonius,  Henry  VIII, 
More,  Colet,  Bude,  and  others.  This  collection  was 
edited  with  a  preface  written  by  Gilles,  who,  according 
to  the  convention  of  the  day,  assumed  the  responsi¬ 
bility  of  bringing  out  the  letters  of  his  modest  friend. 

A  third  selection,  also  fathered  by  Gilles,  appeared  in 
March,  1517,  under  the  title  of  Epistolee  elegantes.  It 
included  thirty-five  letters,  some  of  the  previous  ones 
and  others  from  Leo,  the  Bishop  of  Worcester,  Bude,  and 
other  scholars. 

Sixty-three  new  letters  were  edited  by  Beatus  Rhen- 
anus  under  the  title  of  Auctarium ,  in  August,  1518. 
Erasmus  pretended  to  be  ignorant  of  this  publication 
but  he  really  had  been  preparing  for  it.  To  Mountjoy, 
for  example,  he  wrote2  requesting  him  to  send  some 
letters  for  insertion  in  it  and  promising  to  change  any¬ 
thing  in  them  that  ought  to  be  changed  and  to  publish 
nothing  indiscreet.  Several  of  the  letters  are  apologies. 

The  Farrago  (October,  1519)  contained  a  much  larger 
number  of  letters  (333),  including  almost  all  prior  to  the 
year  1514  that  were  published  during  Erasmus’  life- 

1  For  the  different  editions  published,  cf.  Allen,  i,  593  ff;  Nichols,  i,  pp. 
xxvi  ff.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana  (1893),  Pt.  1,  pp.  87  ff. 

1  Allen,  ep.  783,  c.  March  5,  1518. 


EPISTLES 


205 


time.  The  correspondence  is  quite  one-sided,  only  a  few 
letters  from  such  famous  men  as  More  and  Colet  being 
included.  The  responsibility  for  this  may  rest  partly 
upon  the  Basle  editors,  who  were  modest  enough  not 
to  include  a  single  letter  from  their  own  circle. 

The  next  edition,  Epistol<z  ad  diversos ,  was  brought  out 
in  the  latter  part  of  1521  (the  preface  is  dated  May  27th, 
but  letters  as  late  as  November  22d  are  included)  to 
correct  some  indiscretions  committed  in  the  preceding 
volumes,  for  Erasmus  was  now  getting  deeper  than  he 
wished  into  the  Lutheran  affair.  As  far  as  possible  he 
suppressed  the  earlier  letters  in  which  he  had  expressed 
sympathy  with  the  Reformer.  Most  of  these  are 
probably  now  entirely  lost,  but  some  of  them  have  since 
been  found  and  edited.  To  counteract  their  effect  he 
now  put  in  a  large  quantity  of  hedging  utterances,  pro¬ 
fessing  his  total  aloofness  from  Wittenberg.  His  preface 
is  so  characteristic  of  his  attitude,  especially  toward  his 
own  correspondence,  that  a  part  of  it  may  well  be 
translated:1  » 

I  see,  my  good  Beatus,  that  what  you  write  is  more  true  than  I 
should  wish.  But  then  I  wonder  why  my  German  friends  insist  so 
strongly  upon  that  which  brings  down  upon  me  such  a  burden  of  ill 
will.  For  you  know  how  unhappy  was  the  issue  of  those  epistles  of 
which  you  first  undertook  the  editing,  and  still  more  unfortunate  that 
Farrago.  .  .  .  Even  in  that  careful  selection  enough  was  found  to 
excite  tragic  anger  in  many  hearts.  I  have  therefore  made  up  my 
mind  to  desist  entirely  from  that  kind  of  writing,  especially  now 
that  affairs  are  everywhere  rocked  by  such  a  marvelous  agitation, 
and  the  minds  of  many  so  embittered  by  hatred  that  you  cannot 
write  anything  so  mildly,  so  simply,  or  so  circumspectly  that  they 
will  not  seize  it  for  purposes  of  calumny. 

Though  as  a  young  man,  and  also  at  a  riper  age,  I  have  written 
a  great  number  of  letters,  I  scarcely  wrote  any  with  a  view  to 
publication.  I  practiced  my  style,  I  beguiled  my  leisure,  I  made 
merry  with  my  acquaintance,  I  indulged  my  humor,  in  fine  did 
scarcely  anything  in  this  way  but  amuse  myself,  expecting  nothing 
less  than  that  my  friend  would  copy  and  preserve  such  trifling  com¬ 
positions.  .  .  .  But  if  epistles  lack  true  feeling  and  do  not  represent 
the  life  of  the  writer,  they  do  not  deserve  the  name  of  epistles. 

1  Nichols,  i,  p.  Ixxvii  ff.  Allen,  ep.  1206. 


20 6 


ERASMUS 


Apparently  the  Epistolce  ad  diversos  did  not  have  the 
expected  effect,  for  Erasmus  allowed  seven  years  to  pass 
before  he  again  ventured  to  print  some  more  of  his  cor¬ 
respondence;  and  when  at  last  he  did  so  the  tiny  volume 
of  Selectee  Epistolce  (1528)  consisted  of  apologies.  The 
next  year,  however,  Froben  persuaded  his  learned  friend 
to  undertake  a  new  edition  of  correspondence,  and  this 
resulted  in  the  large  Opus  Epistolarum  (1529)  containing 
more  than  a  thousand  letters,  of  which  more  than  four 
hundred  were  new.  After  this,  supplements  appeared 
frequently,  the  Epistolce  Floridce  in  1531,  the  Epistolce 
palceonceoi  in  1532.  Sixteen  new  letters  appeared  as  an 
appendix  to  his  De  preeparatione  ad  mortem  (1534),  and 
nineteen  new  letters  in  the  volume  containing  his  De 
puritate  tabernaculi  (c.  February,  1536). 

Nowadays,  distinguished  people  leave  the  publication 
of  their  private  correspondence  to  their  literary  executors 
and  biographers.  The  artifices  taken  to  avoid  the  ap¬ 
pearance  of  egotism  have  become  too  trite  and  too  trans¬ 
parent  for  further  use.  Indeed,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
Montaigne  animadverted  severely  on  Cicero  and  Pliny 
for  publishing  their  familiar  epistles,  adding,  “What 
could  a  silly  schoolmaster,  who  gets  his  living  by  such 
trash,  do  worse?”1  A  close  parallel  to  the  humanist’s 
practice  is  furnished  by  Alexander  Pope,  who,  though 
with  greater  secrecy  and  more  elaborate  pretense  that 
it  was  all  done  by  friends,  edited  his  own  letters,  altering 
a  great  deal,  especially  the  names  of  correspondents  and 
dates.2 

Regarding  his  epistles  as  literature,  Erasmus  felt  free  to 
rewrite  them,  as  much  as  wished,  for  publication.  When 
Eoban  Hess  printed  some  of  Erasmus’s  letters,  the 
humanist  wrote  his  young  friend  that  he  regretted  the 
act,  for  he  was  about  to  edit  the  letters  himself  in  a 
fuller  form.3  Comparison  with  the  manuscripts,  where 

1  Montaigne:  Essais ,  i,  39. 

2  G.  Paston:  Mr.  Pope,  1910.  2  vols. 

8  Allen,  ep.  982. 


EPISTLES 


207 


they  have  survived,  shows  extensive  and  important 
alterations.1  Dates,  added  from  memory,  were  fre¬ 
quently  wrong,  or  were  sometimes  falsified  intention¬ 
ally  to  give  a  desired  impression.2  Names  were  sup¬ 
pressed;  whole  passages  were  omitted,  and  others  added, 
Justus  Jonas  remarked  with  astonishment  that  one  of  the 
humanist’s  letters  to  himself  had  been  greatly  expanded 
on  publication,  and  corrupted  by  the  introduction  of  an 
incorrect  statement.3  Erasmus  frequently  assured  his 
friends  that  he  would  print  nothing  unfit  for  the  public 
eye.4  He  preferred  the  artistic  grouping  of  letters  by 
subject  and  writer,  and  shrank  from  the  more  exposing 
chronological  order  which  friends  sometimes  urged  on 
him,  and  which  he  once  promised  to  adopt.5 

These  facts  make  one  cautious  in  using  the  letters  as 
historical  sources,  but  they  do  not  destroy,  or  even 
seriously  impair,  their  value.  Some  facts  would  be  too 
notorious  for  Erasmus  to  suppress;  most  others  he  would 
have  no  motive  for  concealing.  Moreover,  he  could 
never  really  misrepresent  himself.  If  a  letter  written  by 
him  was  published  ten  years  afterward,  we  may  not  be 
sure  of  the  exact  date  at  which  he  held  the  opinions  ex¬ 
pressed  in  it — but  we  are  certain  that  he  held  them,  or  at 
least  wrote  them.  That  he  altered  here  and  there  to 
protect  his  friends  and  himself  was  inevitable  and  morally 
unobjectionable.  Since  his  death  some  letters  have  been 
found  dealing  with  the  shame  of  his  birth  and  the  errors 


1  Examples  of  changes,  Nichols,  vol.  iii,  pp.  116  f,  288,  216,  295.  Cf.  Nichols, 
i,  p.  xx,  p.  xxix;  pp.  406,  408,  ep.  464.  Nichols  reads  “nusquam  adorno”  and 
translates,  “I  do  not  embellish  anywhere,”  applying  this  to  the  editing  of  the 
epistles.  But  the  true  reading  is  “Nusquamam  adorno,”  “I  am  preparing  the 
Utopia .”  Allen,  ep.  477. 

2  An  example  of  this  in  the  first  letters  he  ever  printed,  in  Damiani  Elegia , 
Allen,  epp.  333-335.  Allen  says  that  more  than  half  the  dates  added  by 
Erasmus  from  memory  were  wrong,  i,  59 6. 

s  G.  Kawerau:  Briejwechsel  dss  Justus  Jonas,  1884  f,  i,  p.  42.  The  epistle 
in  question  was  published  in  the  Farrago  nova,  and  is  now  found  in  Allen, 
ep.  985. 

4  Allen,  ep.  783. 

6  Forstemann-Gunther,  nos.  61,  73. 


208 


ERASMUS 


of  his  youth.  How  could  he  be  expected  to  expose  these 
to  the  public  gaze?  The  greater  part  of  his  changes  are 
purely  stylistic,  not  material.  Only  in  one  respect  has  he 
seriously  beclouded  the  clear  sky  of  historical  truth,  and 
in  this  respect  he  has  himself  alone  suffered.  The  repu¬ 
tation  he  has  borne  for  extreme  caution,  carried  to  the 
verge  of  cowardice,  is  based  on  the  impression  given  by 
the  letters  published  by  himself  and  carefully  toned 
down,  as  was  absolutely  necessary  in  the  circum¬ 
stances,  when  they  were  published.  He  really  played  a 
momentous  and  a  not  cowardly  part  in  the  great  religious 
conflict  of  his  age,  but  he  has  given  the  world  the  idea, 
through  the  carefully  guarded  manner  in  which  he  ex¬ 
plained  his  private  acts  to  the  public,  that  he  played  a 
small,  almost  a  pusillanimous,  role.1  Making  due  allow¬ 
ance  for  this,  as  should  be  done,  though  it  hardly  ever 
has  been  done,  we  shall  find  him  a  greater  and  truer 
man  in  his  nakedness  than  he  appeared  in  his  own  too 
carefully  selected  dress. 

For  the  lover  of  history  and  of  good  literature  Eras¬ 
mus’s  epistles  are  a  feast.  He  serves  up  all  his  own  sweet 
and  reasonable  ideas,  many  a  lively  anecdote,  and  not  a 
few  exquisite  portraits,  with  the  sauce  of  gentle  humor 
and  the  warmth  of  a  facile,  charming,  if  not  classical, 
Latin.  And  what  a  society  one  meets  at  his  hospitable 
board!  Popes  and  monarchs,  nobles  and  bankers, 
reformers,  scholars,  artists,  writers,  Luther,  Melanchthon 
Margaret  of  Navarre,  Colet,  More,  Bude,  Zwingli, 
(Ecolampadius,  Aleander,  Rabelais!  But  to  name  them 
all  would  be  to  call  the  roll  of  half  the  great  men  of  the 
early  sixteenth  century. 

1  Cf.  P.  Kalkoff:  Gegenr (formation  in  den  Niederlanden,  1903,  i,  4. 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  REFORMATION.  THE  FIRST  PHASE,  I517-2I 

ERASMUS  laid  the  eggs  and  Luther  hatched  the 
chickens/’  “Erasmus  is  the  father  of  Luther.” 
“Luther,  Zwingli,  CEcolampadius,  and  Erasmus  are  the 
soldiers  of  Pilate,  who  crucify  Christ.”  These  gems  of 
the  epigrammatic  style  are  among  those  that  once 
studded  the  sermons  of  a  Catholic  priest  who  wished  by 
them  to  express  vividly  his  conviction  that  Erasmus 
started  the  Reformation.  It  is  true  that  Erasmus  denied 
that  the  priest  had  either  learning  or  eloquence,  or  fair¬ 
ness,  or  genius,  or  piety,1  and  as  to  the  first  saying  he 
protested,  “I  laid  a  hen’s  egg;  Luther  hatched  a  bird 
of  quite  a  different  breed.”2  Nevertheless,  the  pithy 
phrase  flew  all  over  Europe,  attained  almost  the  currency 
of  a  proverb,  and  but  expressed,  with  true  wit,  what 
many  people  thought.  Aleander  asserted  that  Luther 
and  Erasmus  taught  the  same  things,  save  that  the 
poison  of  the  latter  was  more  deadly.3 

On  the  Protestant  side  the  same  assertion  was  often 
made.  “We  all  know,”  wrote  Conrad  Mutian  in  the 
early  days  of  his  enthusiasm  for  the  Reform  to  his  friend 
John  Lang,  “that  we  must  congratulate  theology  on 
being  restored  by  Erasmus,  from  whom,  as  from  a  foun¬ 
tain,  are  derived  (Ecolampadii,  Melanchthons,  Luthers, 
and,  oh!  how  many  princes  of  literature!”4 
Luther  saw  clearly  the  connection  of  Renaissance  and 

1  Erasmus  to  Sinapius,  July  31,  1534.  Stahelin:  Briefe  aus  der  Refor- 
mationszeit,  1887,  no.  24. 

2  LB.  iii,  840. 

3  Deutsche  Reichstags akten  unter  Karl  V ,  ii,  523  f. 

4  Mutian  to  Lang,  May  24,  1520.  Krause:  Epistolee  aliquot  selectee.  Osier - 
programm  des  Zerbster  Gymnasiums ,  1883,  15. 


209 


210 


ERASMUS 


Reformation,  saying:  “There  has  never  been  a  great 
revelation  of  the  Word  of  God  unless  he  has  first  prepared 
the  way  by  the  rise  and  prosperity  of  languages  and 
letters,  as  though  they  were  John  the  Baptists.”1  Eras¬ 
mus,  he  stated,  had  called  the  world  from  godless  studies 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  sacred  tongues,  though,  like  Moses, 
he  could  not  himself  enter  into  the  promised  land.2 
Zwingli,  Melanchthon,  and  the  minor  Reformers  were 
also  forward  to  acknowledge  their  debts  to  the  humanist. 
In  fact,  if  the  matter  were  to  be  decided  by  the  suffrage  of 
leading  contemporaries,  the  man  would  certainly  be  con¬ 
sidered,  as  he  has  recently  been  dubbed,  “a  hero  of  the 
Reformation.”  But  he  himself  would  have  declined  the 
title;  in  fact,  he  spent  the  last  fifteen  years  of  his  life 
energetically  protesting  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  Protestant  revolt.  If  he  really  labored  in  the  vine¬ 
yard,  he  was  like  the  son  in  the  parable  who  did  so,  but 
who  said,  “I  go  not.” 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is  somewhat  complicated.  On 
one  side,  the  purely  intellectual,  the  Reformation  inher¬ 
ited  the  wealth  of  the  Christian  Renaissance  in  general, 
and  of  the  Dutch  humanist  in  particular.  The  program 
demanding  a  wider  cultivation  of  letters,  a  return  to  the 
Bible  and  early  sources,  the  suppression  of  abuses  and  of 
mediaeval  accretions  on  the  primitive  Church,  the  reform 
of  the  Church,  and  the  substitution  of  an  inner,  individ¬ 
ual  piety  for  a  mechanical,  external  scheme  of  salvation, 
was  first  advanced  by  the  humanists  and  was  after¬ 
ward  largely  realized  by  the  Reformers.  But  the  Refor¬ 
mation  was  the  child  of  more  than  one  ancestor;  it  took 
over  and  accomplished  the  programs  of  several  other 
movements,  which  lay  outside  the  Renaissance,  and  were 
in  part  hostile  to  it.  On  one  side  it  represented  the 
growth  of  nationalism  and  the  foundation  of  state 
churches,  already  foreshadowed  by  the  English  statutes 
of  Mortmain,  Provisors,  and  Praemunire,  and  by  the 

1  Luther  to  Eoban  Hess,  March  29,  1523.  L.  C.  ep.  580. 

2  Luther  to  (Ecolampadius,  June  20,  1523.  L.  C.  ep.  591. 


THE  REFORMATION 


21 1 


Gallican  liberties.  With  this  aspiration  cosmopolitan 
culture  had  no  part  nor  lot.  Again,  Luther  and  Calvin 
appealed  chiefly  to  the  newly  powerful  bourgeois  classes, 
whereas  the  humanists  cared  naught  for  any  social  ques¬ 
tion.  A  vein  of  mysticism  came  down  from  Tauler  and 
The  German  Theology  to  Luther;  but  Erasmus,  though 
he  was  directly  exposed  to  the  influence  of  Thomas  a 
Kempis  and  of  the  Dutch  mystics,  and  though  he  owed 
something  to  them,  was  too  much  of  a  rationalist  to 
know  the  ardors  of  the  mystic  life.  Finally,  the  Refor¬ 
mation  was  the  direct  heir  of  the  mediaeval  heretics,  espe¬ 
cially  of  Wyclif  and  Huss.  But  Erasmus  neither  knew 
them  nor  would  have  approved  their  schism.  Though 
he  was  aware  that  Colet  was  a  student  of  Wyclif,  he 
himself  never  read  the  English  Reformer,  and  to  the 
Lollards  his  only  reference  is  the  jocose  remark  that  he 
pitied  those  who  were  burned  in  1511  less  because  the 
demand  for  fagots  sent  up  the  price  of  firewood.1  In 
truth,  heresy  always  seemed  to  him  a  bit  freakish,  some¬ 
thing  repugnant  to  the  sane  and  sound  common  sense  of 
mankind.  When  the  Bohemian  Brother,  John  Slechta, 
of  Kosteletz,  wrote  him  of  the  three  churches  in  Bohemia,2 
Erasmus  replied  that  he  wished  they  were  all  one,  and 
that  eccentricity  was  no  presumption  of  truth.  No 
doctrine  has  been  so  silly,  said  he,  that  it  has  not  found 
followers : 

There  were  men  who  taught  that  it  was  pious  for  sons  to  kill  an 
aged  parent,  and  a  nation  has  been  found  where  this  is  solemnly 
done.  .  .  .  There  were  some  who  recognized  a  debt  to  Judas  the 
traitor  for  the  redemption  of  the  world,  nor  were  disciples  lacking 
who  worshiped  him  as  a  great  saint.  ...  I  believe  that  if  leaders 
arose  teaching  that  it  is  religious  for  naked  men  to  dance  with  naked 
women  in  the  market  place  they  would  get  disciples  for  their  sect. 

1  Allen,  epp.  239,  240.  These  jocose  letters  may  have  been  the  source  of 
the  assertion  made  by  Pierre  Bayle  (1697)  that  burning  heretics  under 
Queen  Mary  raised  the  price  of  firewood  in  England.  See  Addison’s 
Spectator ,  no.  139,  December  4,  1711. 

2  Allen,  epp.  1021,  1039.  October  10  and  November  1,  1519.  Also  published 
in  Bohuslaw’s  correspondence:  Dva  Listare  Humanisticke  .  .  .  ed.  J.  Truhlar, 
Prag,  1897,  ep.  28. 


212 


ERASMUS 


But,  however  much  Erasmus  despised  the  vagaries  of 
religious  enthusiasm,  he  was  desirous  of  reform.  When 
Luther  began  attacking  flagrant  abuses,  Erasmus  knew 
that  he  had  a  case,  and  a  good  one.  For  nearly  four 
years  he  labored  hard  and  at  no  little  risk  to  get  him  a 
fair  hearing.  Later  he  was  repelled,  not  so  much  by  the 
danger  to  himself — though  that  was  not  slight — as  by 
the  dogmatic  violence  of  the  Evangelical  leaders.  Dis¬ 
liking  dogma,  he  could  not  find  it  any  more  palatable 
hot  from  Wittenberg  than  cold  in  Rome.  Fearing  the 
“tumult”  above  all  things,  bitterly  hating  the  mob- 
violence  and  partisan  conflict  in  which  reason  can  but 
abdicate,  he  became  more  and  more  alien  to  the  cause 
he  had  once  regarded  with  open-mindedness,  if  not  with 
cordial  approval.  Even  from  the  first  he  had  misgiv¬ 
ings,  lest  the  stir  and  bustle  of  it  all  should  end  in  a 
tragedy.  Indeed,  it  is  possible  that  he  foresaw  the 
revolt  before  it  took  place.  The  signs  of  the  time 
were  so  plain  that  Aleander1  warned  the  pope  in  1516 
that  Germany  was  on  the  point  of  secession.  “In 
this  part  of  the  world,”  wrote  Erasmus,  on  Septem¬ 
ber  9,  1517,  “I  fear  that  a  great  revolution  is  about  to 
take  place.”2 

Though  Erasmus  could  not  have  been  one  of  the 
formative  influences  of  Luther’s  early  life,  his  writings 
were,  from  1515  or  1516  until  about  1521,  the  chief 
guide  and  authority  of  the  Wittenberg  professor.  After 
1521,  the  humanist  was  indeed  read  carefully,  but  gen¬ 
erally  with  dissent  and  reprobation.  But  in  the  earlier 
period,  so  perfectly  did  the  Austin  friar  imbibe  the 
doctrine  of  the  Austin  canon  that  on  April  27,  1518,  at 
the  Heidelberg  disputation,  Bucer  reported  that  the 
young  Reformer  agreed  in  all  things  with  Erasmus,  save 

1  P.  Balan:  Monumenta  Reformationis,  1884,110.31;  Th.  Brieger:  Aleander 
und  Luther ,  1884,  no.  11. 

2  Allen,  ep.  658;  Nichols,  ep.  628.  It  is  not  certain,  but  it  is  quite  possible 
that  Erasmus  had  in  mind  an  impending  religious  revolution.  He  may  have 
referred  to  the  disorders  in  Holland,  such  as  the  atrocities  of  the  Black  Band; 
but  it  is  as  likely  that  he  had  an  uneasy  presentiment  of  religious  change. 


THE  REFORMATION 


213 


that  he  expressed  them  more  openly.1  The  Adagia  was 
one  of  the  first  works  of  its  author  to  be  thoroughly  read 
by  the  Wittenberger,  and  was  one  which  he  took  care 
always  to  have  in  the  latest  and  best  edition.2 3 4 * 6  There 
may  be  a  quotation  from  it  in  Luther’s  works  as  early 
as  1510-n;3  quotations  from  it  become  very  numerous 
after  May,  15 18. 4  The  Enchiridion  suggested  the  cam¬ 
paign  at  Wittenberg  against  the  worship  of  the  saints, 
and  the  difference  between  inner  and  outer  religion, 
worked  up  in  the  treatise  On  Christian  Liberty.  The 
Folly  was  also  read,  as  was  the  satire  known  as  the  Julius 
Excluded  from  Heaven. 

Luther  purchased  and  eagerly  devoured  the  large  col¬ 
lections  of  the  humanist’s  letters  published  from  time  to 
time.  He  perused  the  Auctarium  selectarum  epistolarumh 
(August,  1518)  containing  sixty-three  letters  mostly  of 
the  years  1517-18;  the  Farrago  nova 6  (1519)  with  333 
epistles  well  distributed  over  many  years;  the  Epistolce 
ad  diversos7  (September  1,  1521)  containing  many  recent 
but  cautiously  selected  letters.  These  volumes  were 
chiefly  interesting  to  him  as  revealing  the  writer’s  atti¬ 
tude  toward  the  Evangelic  cause  and  its  leader,  and  he 
praised  or  blamed  them  accordingly.  In  subsequent 
years  he  expressed  the  harsh  judgment  that  nothing  was 
to  be  found  in  the  epistles  but  laudation  of  friends  and 
reviling  of  enemies.8 

One  of  these  letters,  that  to  Antony  of  Bergen,  dated 
March  14,  1514,  on  the  subject  of  peace,  was  translated 

1  L.  C.  ep.  57. 

s  Luther  s  Brieftvechsel,  bearbeitet  von  E.  L.  Enders,  i,  157.  February,  1518. 

3  Luther’s  notes  on  Lombard’s  Sentences ,  Luthers  Werke ,  Weimar,  ix,  65, 
quotes  the  proverb  “sus  Minervam,”  which  may  have  been  taken  from 
iEsop,  but  more  probably  from  Erasmus. 

4  Enders,  i,  192  (twice),  193  (twice),  207  (twice),  214,  351,  404,  408  (twice), 
489;  ii,  48,  122  (twice),  13 1,  193.  There  are  probably  others  I  have  not 
noticed. 

B  De  Wette:  Luthers  Briefe  (1825-56),  i,  362.  Cf.  Enders,  ii,  216. 

6  Enders,  ii,  369.  L.  C.  i,  310. 

7  Enders,  iii,  360,  361. 

8  Tischreden,  ed.  Forstemann  und  Bindseil,  iii,  423. 


214 


ERASMUS 


by  Spalatin,  Luther’s  best  friend,  apparently  from  a 
manuscript  copy.1  Spalatin,  indeed,  the  chaplain  of  the 
Elector  Frederic,  was  a  tremendous  admirer  of  the 
humanist,  other  works  of  whom  he  thought  of  translat¬ 
ing;  and  all  of  those  publications,  as  fast  as  they  came 
out,  he  induced  his  master  to  buy  and  put  in  the  library 
at  Wittenberg,  where  Luther  and  the  other  professors 
had  easy  access  to  them.2 

Most  of  all  was  Luther  influenced  by  the  publication 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  which  from  the  moment 
he  got  it,  in  April,  1516,  became  his  chief  guide  and 
authority  in  exegesis  for  some  years.  But  the  Witten¬ 
berg  professor  was  not  the  man  to  follow  any  authority 
blindly.  The  sharp  critic  of  the  Bible  did  not  let  its 
modern  editor  go  unscathed.  He  was  especially  dis¬ 
pleased  by  the  treatment  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
for,  having  recently  worked  out  his  own  famous  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith,  resting  on  Romans  i  :i 7,  he  was 
disappointed  to  see  that  Erasmus  had  so  little  to  say 
about  it.  So  much  disturbed  was  he  by  this  omission, 
that  within  a  few  months  after  he  had  obtained  the  New 
Testament,  he  wrote  to  his  influential  friend  Spalatin, 
pointing  out  the  fault  and  begging  him  to  communicate 
it  to  Erasmus.3  “In  interpreting  the  apostle  on  justifi- 

1  Allen,  ep.  266,  i,  551.  Allen  puts  Spalatin’s  translation  in  1514.  This 
would  postulate  an  extremely  brisk  circulation  of  the  letter.  Spalatin’s  letter 
to  Luther,  Enders,  i,  74,  L.  C.  ep.  23,  on  the  advisability  of  translating  certain 
little  works,  points  to  1516  as  the  more  probable  date.  The  evidence  that 
Luther  knew  the  translation  is  in  a  letter  to  Spalatin,  Enders,  i,  333  (1519), 
where  he  says,  “Erasmus  is  for  peace  as  you  know  better  than  I  do.” 

2  Allen,  ii,  417.  A  list  of  the  books  bought  for  this  library  in  the  year 
1512  includes  Erasmi  opera  (meaning  the  Lucubratiunculce ,  cf.  Bibliotheca 
Erasmiana ,  i,  119),  Valla’s  Elegantice,  the  Annotationes  in  Novum  Testa- 
mentum ,  and  the  Encomium  Morics.  Archiv  fur  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Buck- 
handels ,  xviii,  1896. 

3  Enders,  i,  63-64.  October  19,  1516,  L.  C.  ep.  21.  For  another  criticism,  of 
February,  1519,  ibid.,  i,  439.  It  is  a  little  hard  to  find  the  exact  point  of  Luther’s 
criticism,  which  seems  somewhat  fine  spun  to  modern  minds.  Turning  to 
Erasmus’s  note  on  Romans  i :  1 7  (the  division  into  verses  is  later,  but  I  refer 
to  the  passage,  “The  just  shall  live  by  his  faith”),  found  in  the  Annotationes 
(1519),  pp.  251  ff,  we  see  that  Erasmus,  instead  of  following  Jerome,  expressly 
repudiates  him.  Jerome  would  have  read,  both  here  and  in  Habakkuk  (ii 24), 


THE  REFORMATION 


215 


cation  by  works,  or  by  the  law,  or  justification  proper 
(as  the  apostle  calls  it),  he  understands  only  the  cere¬ 
monial  and  figurative  observance  of  the  law.  Moreover 
he  will  not  hear  the  apostle  on  original  sin,  though  he 
allows  that  there  is  such  a  thing.”  The  writer  concludes 
that  no  good  works  justify,  even  if  they  be  the  heroic 
deeds  of  a  Fabricius  or  of  a  Regulus.  In  accordance  with 
his  friend’s  desire,  Spalatin  communicated  this  criticism 
to  Erasmus,  quoting  it  word  for  word,  but  mentioning 
the  critic  only  as  “an  Augustinian  priest  no  less  famous 
for  the  sanctity  of  his  life  than  for  his  theological  lore.” 
The  humanist  received  this  letter,  but  did  not  answer  it.1 

Another  severe  criticism,  probably  directed  against  the 
notes  on  the  New  Testament,  is  the  following  in  a  letter 
of  March  1,  1 5 17.2 

I  read  our  Erasmus  and  my  respect  for  him  daily  decreases.  He 
pleases  me  because,  constantly  and  learnedly,  he  convicts  and 
condemns  monks  and  priests  of  inveterate  sloth  and  ignorance;  yet 
I  fear  he  does  not  sufficiently  reveal  Christ  and  the  grace  of  God,  in 
which  he  is  much  more  ignorant  than  Lefevre  d’Etaples,  for  human 
considerations  prevail  with  him  much  more  than  divine. 

While  Erasmus  paid  no  attention  to  Spalatin’s  letter 
on  biblical  theology,  he  could  not  long  ignore  the  Ninety- 
five  Theses  on  indulgences,  posted  on  the  doors  of  the 
Castle  Church  at  Wittenberg  on  October  31,  1517.  Even 
before  they  were  nailed  up  they  had  been  printed,  and 
they  flew  through  Germany  “as  if  carried  by  angels.” 
Four  months  after  their  promulgation  they  were  sent  by 
Erasmus  to  his  friends  More  and  Colet.3  To  the  latter 
he  wrote: 

In  all  royal  courts  counterfeit  theologians  rule.  The  Roman  Curia 
has  simply  cast  aside  all  shame.  What  is  more  impudent  than  these 
incessant  indulgences?  Now  a  war  with  the  Turks  is  the  pretext  for 
them,  though  the  real  object  is  to  drive  the  Spaniards  from  Naples. 

“The  just  shall  live  by  my  faith”;  Erasmus  defends  the  traditional  reading, 
“by  his  faith.”  Luther  had  arrived  at  his  interpretation  about  June,  1515. 

1  Spalatin  to  Erasmus,  Allen,  ep.  501.  He  wrote  again,  complaining  that 
he  had  received  no  answer,  November  13,  1517.  Ep.  71 1.  Cf.  Allen,  ii,  p.  415. 

2  L.  C.  ep.  30.  A  similar  opinion,  January  18,  1518. 

3  Allen,  epp.  785,  786,  March  5,  1518. 


2l6 


ERASMUS 


Unfortunately,  Colet’s  answer  has  not  been  preserved, 
but  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  he  approved  of 

the  Theses.1 

Two  months  later,  when  Erasmus  passed  through 
Strassburg  on  his  way  from  Louvain  to  Basle,  he  saw 
Fabritius  Capito,  who  had  already  been  in  correspond¬ 
ence  with  him  and  with  Luther,2  and  to  this  common 
friend  the  humanist  expressed  a  candid  admiration  for 
the  Theses ,  which  Capito  hastened  to  communicate  to 
Wittenberg.3 

No  one  could  remain  long  unconscious  of  the  turmoil 
excited  by  the  first  act  of  the  Reformation.  Erasmus’s 
opinion  of  the  Theses ,  and  his  endeavor  to  pour  oil  on 
the  troubled  waters,  is  reflected  in  the  preface  to  the 
new  edition  of  his  Enchiridion ,  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to 
Paul  Volz,  dated  August  14,  1 5 1 8.4 

If  anyone  assails  the  absurd  opinions  of  the  common  people  who 
call  those  virtues  prime  which  are  the  very  least,  and  who  detest 
among  vices  those  which  are  most  trivial  even  at  their  worst,  and 
conversely,  he  is  at  once  called  into  court  as  though  he  favored  those 
vices  which  he  called  less  evil  than  others,  and  as  if  he  condemned 
virtues  which  he  said  were  less  holy  than  some  others.  So,  if  anyone 
admonishes  us  that  deeds  of  charity  are  better  than  papal  indulgences, 
he  does  not  altogether  condemn  indulgences,  but  he  prefers  to  them 
what  is  more  surely  taught  by  Christ.  Likewise,  if  anyone  warns  us 
that  it  is  better  for  a  man  to  care  for  wife  and  children  at  home  than 
to  make  pilgrimages  to  Rome,  Jerusalem,  or  Compostella,  and  better 
to  give  the  money  wasted  on  these  long  and  perilous  journeys  to 
good  and  true  poor  men,  he  does  not  condemn  the  pious  intention, 
but  prefers  to  it  that  which  is  more  truly  pious. 

1  In  his  letter  to  Luther,  May  30,  1519,  L.  C.  ep.  155,  Erasmus  says  that  he 
has  favorers  in  England,  and  those  among  the  greatest.  As  he  could  hardly 
have  referred  to  More,  or  Wolsey,  or  Tunstall,  or  Fisher,  who  was  left,  among 
Erasmus’s  friends,  save  Colet? 

2  Enders,  ep.  63  February  19,  1518;  Allen,  ep.  459,  September  2,  1516. 

3  The  letter  in  which  Capito  told  Luther  of  Erasmus’s  judgment  is  lost,  but 
a  summary  of  it  is  given  in  a  letter  of  September  4,  1518.  Enders,  ep.  92. 
L.  C.  ep.  78.  Capito  was  at  this  time  resident  at  Basle,  connected  with  the 
university  and  cathedral,  but  he  was  making  a  visit  to  Strassburg  to  push  his 
suit  for  the  provostship  of  St.  Thomas’s  Church,  which  suit  he  won. 

4  Allen,  ep.  858.  Erasmus  later  denied  that  he  had  the  Theses  in  mind,  but 
it  is  difficult  to  believe  this  when  one  compares  the  passage  here  translated 
with  Theses  4.3-46.  Luthers  Werke ,  Weimar,  i,  235. 


THE  REFORMATION 


217 


Erasmus  was  further  informed  of  the  course  of  events 
by  a  letter  from  Luther’s  good  friend,  John  Lang,  of 
Erfurt,  a  letter  brought  by  Eoban  Hess  when  he  visited 
Louvain  in  October,  1518.  To  Lang  the  humanist  re¬ 
plied  on  October  17,  1518  d 

I  hear  that  Eleutherius  is  approved  by  all  good  men,  but  it  is  said 
that  his  writings  are  unequal.  I  think  his  Theses  will  please  all,  except 
a  few  about  Purgatory,  which  they  who  make  their  living  from  it 
don’t  want  taken  from  them.  I  have  seen  Prierias’s  bungling  answer.1 
I  see  that  the  monarchy  of  the  Roman  high  priest  (as  that  see  now  is) 
is  the  plague  of  Christendom,  though  it  is  praised  through  thick  and 
thin  by  shameless  preachers.  Yet  I  hardly  know  whether  it  is  expedi¬ 
ent  to  touch  this  open  sore,  for  that  is  the  duty  of  princes.  But  I  fear 
they  conspire  with  the  pontiff  for  part  of  the  spoils.  I  wonder  what 
has  come  over  Eck  to  begin  a  battle  with  Eleutherius.3 

Two  days  after  penning  the  above  Erasmus  wrote  to 
Capito:  “Some  one  has  informed  me  that  Martin  Luther 
is  in  danger.”4  This  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  heretic’s 
summons  before  Cardinal  Cajetan  at  Augsburg.  Here 
he  bravely  refused  to  recant  the  errors  attributed  to  him, 
and  appealed  from  the  pope  badly  informed  to  the  pope 
to  be  better  informed,  and  soon  afterward  from  pope  to 
General  Council.  In  this  stand  at  Augsburg,  if  we  may 
trust  the  report  of  Spalatin,  “Erasmus  of  Rotterdam 
gave  Doctor  Martin  great  applause,  as  did  almost  all 
the  University  of  Louvain,  and  many  eminent  persons 
in  divers  lands.”5 

The  interest  of  the  humanists  in  Luther  just  at  this 
time  led  some  of  them  to  prepare  for  Froben  an  edition 
of  the  Reformer’s  collected  pamphlets.  Responsibility 

1  Allen,  ep.  872;  L.  C.  ep.  87. 

2  The  Dialogue  of  Sylvester  Prierias,  master  of  the  Sacred  Palace,  was 
printed  in  the  summer  of  1518,  and  sent  by  Luther  to  Lang  on  September  16. 
Enders,  i,  236. 

3  John  Eck  had  attacked  the  Theses  in  a  tract  called  Obelisks. 

4  Allen,  ep.  877. 

5  Spalatin’s  account  of  the  trial  at  Augsburg,  Luthers  Sdmmtliche  Sckriften , 
hg.  von  J.  G.  Walch.  Neue  revidirte  Stereotypausgabe,  Band  xxi,  1904,  col. 
3244.  “Herr  Erasmus  Roterodamus  gibt  dem  Doctori  Martino  einen  grossen 
Zufall.”  “Zufall”  then  was  the  equivalent  of  “Beifall”  or  “Zustimmung.” 
See  Sanders:  Deutsches  Worterbuch ,  s.  v.  “Fall,”  in  fin. 


218 


ERASMUS 


for  it  has  commonly  been  placed,  apparently  follow¬ 
ing  a  hint  of  Erasmus,  at  the  door  of  Capito,  and  the 
anonymous  preface  is  attributed  to  him.1  But  the  express 
testimony  of  Conrad  Pellican2  that  Beatus  Rhenanus  pre¬ 
pared  the  volume  and  sent  it  to  press,  is  supported  by 
other  indications.  This  volume  contained  The  Resolu¬ 
tions,  with  a  dedication  to  Leo  X,  the  Dialogue  of  Prierias , 
and  Luther’s  Answer,  Carlstadt’s  Apology  Against  Eck, 
Luther’s  Sermon  on  Penance,  Sermon  on  Indulgences,  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Ban,  Sermons  on  the  Ten  Commandments,  and 
a  few  other  small  things.  The  preface,  “To  Candid 
Theologians,”  is  undated;  the  colophon  gives  the  date 
“Mense  Octobri,  1518.”  The  volume  had  no  name  of 
place  or  printer,  but  met  at  once  with  a  wide  sale.3  A 
reprint  was  called  for  in  1518,  and  another  early  in  1519. 
On  February  14th  of  that  year  Froben  wrote  Luther  that 
he  had  already  exported  some  hundreds  of  copies  to 
France,  Spain,  Italy,  Brabant,  and  England.4 

The  Cornell  University  Library  possesses  a  particu¬ 
larly  interesting  copy  of  the  first  edition  of  this  book, 
for  it  once  belonged  to  the  Amerbachs,  as  is  proved  by 
the  inscription  in  Boniface’s  autograph,  “Amerbachi- 
orum,”  on  the  title-page.5  They  had  it  bound  with  a 
few  other  tracts,  Luther’s  De  prczparatione  ad  Eucha - 
ristiam  of  November,  1518,  and  pamphlets  by  Bartho- 
linus  Perusinus  and  by  (Ecolampadius,  these  all  with 
Froben’s  emblem  and  imprint.  It  was  perhaps  this  very 

1  L.  C.  ep.  94. 

2  Pellican,  who  knew  intimately  Froben’s  circle,  says:  “Ad  festum  penta- 
costes  (1519)  perveni  Basileam;  quo  tempore  multi  Lutherani  libri  impress! 
sunt  Basileae,  opera  et  submissione  Beati  Rhenani,  primum  quidem  a  Johanne 
Frobenio,  nempe,”  and  then  he  goes  on  to  describe  the  contents  of  this  volume. 
See  Pellican’s  Chronicon ,  p.  75.  Froben  himself  wrote  Luther  (L.C.  ep.  125) 
that  he  got  the  originals  from  Blasius  Salmonius,  an  unknown  Leipzig  printer. 

3  First  record  of  this  in  a  letter  of  Beatus  Rhenanus  to  Zwingli,  December 
26,  1518;  Z.  W.,  ep.  53. 

4  L.  C.  ep.  125. 

6  It  was  bought  by  Prof.  George  L.  Burr  from  the  duplicates  of  the  Basle 
Library  in  1904.  There  is  a  copy  of  the  1519  edition  at  Andover  Theological 
Library  in  Cambridge,  Massachusetts.  I  owe  the  reference  to  Pellican  and 
others  on  this  subject  to  Professor  Burr. 


THE  REFORMATION 


219 


copy  that  was  seen  by  Erasmus,  who  at  any  rate  very 
soon  read  the  book,  took  fright  at  the  inflammatory 
nature  of  some  of  the  material  in  it,  and  wrote  a  long 
letter  to  Beatus  Rhenanus  on  the  subject,1  and  also  ad¬ 
vised  Froben  not  to  publish  anything  more  of  Luther’s; 
- — advice  which  he  repeatedly  drove  home  by  letters  from 
Louvain,  where  he  spent  the  summer  of  15 19. 2 

Not  knowing  this,  Luther  had  much  reason  to  believe 
that  Erasmus  was  one  of  his  strong  supporters,  having 
been  informed  to  this  effect  by  Capito  and  by  a  rumor 
from  the  court  of  Albert  of  Mainz.3  On  March  18,  1519, 
he  accordingly  wrote  a  letter4  to  the  last  degree  affection¬ 
ate  and  respectful,  couched  in  the  following  terms: 

Greeting.  Often  as  I  converse  with  you  and  you  with  me,  Erasmus, 
our  glory  and  our  hope,  we  do  not  yet  know  one  another.  Is  that  not 
extraordinary?  No,  it  is  not  extraordinary,  but  a  thing  of  every  day. 
For  who  is  there  whose  innermost  parts  Erasmus  has  not  penetrated, 
whom  Erasmus  does  not  teach,  in  whom  Erasmus  does  not  reign? 
I  mean  of  those  wTho  rightly  love  learning;  for  I  rejoice  that  among 
Christ’s  other  gifts  to  you,  this  also  is  numbered,  that  you  displease 
many;  for  by  this  criterion  I  am  wont  to  know  the  gifts  of  a  merciful 
from  the  gifts  of  an  angry  God.  I  therefore  congratulate  you  that 
while  you  please  good  men  to  the  last  degree,  you  no  less  displease 
those  who  alone  wish  to  be  highest  and  to  please  most.  .  .  . 

Now  that  I  have  learned  from  Fabritius  Capito  that  my  name  is 
known  to  you  on  account  of  my  little  treatise  on  indulgences,  and 
as  I  also  see  from  the  preface  to  the  new  edition  of  your  Handbook 
of  the  Christian  Knight  that  my  ideas  are  not  only  known  to  you  but 
approved  by  you,  I  am  compelled  to  acknowledge  your  noble  spirit, 
which  has  enriched  me  and  all  men,  even  though  I  write  a  barbarous 
style.  Truly  I  know  that  you  will  esteem  my  gratitude  and  affection, 
as  shown  in  this  epistle,  a  very  small  matter,  and  that  you  would  be 
content  to  have  my  mind  burn  secretly  before  God  with  love  and 
gratitude  to  you;  even  as  we  are  satisfied  to  know  you  without  your 
being  aware  of  it,  having  your  spirit  and  services  in  books,  without 

1  This  letter  has,  unfortunately,  not  survived,  but  is  mentioned  in  a  letter 
of  Beatus  Rhenanus  to  Zwingli,  of  March  19,  1519,  Z.  W.,  ep.  86:  “Erasmus 
.  .  .  scripsit  ad  me  literas  quae  libellum  aequare  possent,  de  Lutherio  et  aliis 
rebus.” 

2  Allen,  ep.  1033,  1167;  and  to  Alberto  Pio,  October  10,1525,  LB.  ep.  333; 
also  LB.  ix,  1094. 

3  L.  C.  epp.  78,  100,  127. 

4  Allen,  ep.  933. 


220 


ERASMUS 


missives  or  conversation  face  to  face.  But  shame  and  conscience  do 
not  suffer  me  not  to  thank  you  in  words,  especially  now  that  my 
name  has  begun  to  emerge  from  obscurity,  lest  perchance  some  one 
might  think  my  silence  malignant  and  of  ill  appearance.  Wherefore, 
dear  Erasmus,  learn,  if  it  please  you,  to  know  this  little  brother  in 
Christ  also;  he  is  assuredly  your  very  zealous  friend,  though  he 
otherwise  deserves,  on  account  of  his  ignorance,  only  to  be  buried  in 
a  corner,  unknown  even  to  your  sun  and  climate.  .  .  . 

Philip  Melanchthon  prospers,  except  that  we  are  all  hardly  able 
to  prevent  him  from  injuring  his  health  by  his  too  great  rage  for 
study.  With  the  ardor  of  youth  he  burns  both  to  be  and  to  do  all 
things  unto  all  men.  You  would  do  us  a  favor  if  by  a  letter  you 
would  admonish  him  to  keep  himself  for  us  and  for  learning,  for 
while  he  is  safe  I  know  not  what  greater  things  we  may  not  con¬ 
fidently  hope.  Andrew  Carlstadt,  who  venerates  you  in  Christ, 
sends  greeting.  May  the  Lord  Jesus  himself  keep  you  forever, 
excellent  Erasmus.  Amen.  I  have  been  prolix.  But  you  will  know 
that  you  ought  not  always  to  read  only  learned  letters;  sometimes 
you  must  be  weak  with  the  weak. 

Brother  Martin  Luther. 

Melanchthon,  just  mentioned,  had  long  been  a  devoted 
admirer  of  the  great  humanist,  to  whom  he  had  written 
Greek  verses  while  yet  a  boy,1  and  to  whom  he  occasion¬ 
ally  ventured  to  send  greetings.  The  fame  of  his  pre¬ 
cocity  had  reached  Erasmus,  who  recommended  him  for 
a  position  in  England  and  always  spoke  of  his  talents 
with  high  regard.2  Early  in  1 5 1 83  Melanchthon  wrote 
to  the  elder  scholar  to  contradict  a  rumor  that  he  (Me¬ 
lanchthon)  intended  to  revise  his  (Erasmus’s)  commen¬ 
taries,  and  at  the  same  time  to  assure  him  of  his  own 
and  Luther’s  zealous  affection.  On  April  22d4  Erasmus 
replied,  assuring  him  of  constant  friendship,  and  adding: 
“No  one  among  us  disapproves  Luther’s  life;  of  his  doc- 

1  Allen,  ep.  454.  Cf.  ep.  457. 

2  (Ecolampadius  to  Erasmus,  March  2 6,  1517;  Allen,  ep.  563.  In  his  reply, 
c.  July,  1517,  Allen,  ep.  605,  Erasmus  wrote:  “Of  Melanchthon  I  think  highly 
and  hope  splendidly,  provided  Christ  will  that  that  youth  shall  long  survive 
us.  He  will  simply  eclipse  Erasmus.”  Cf.  also  Briefwechsel  des  Conradus 
Mutia?ius,  hg.  K.  Gillert,  1890,  i,  250. 

3  Allen,  ep.  910,  dated  January  5,  1519,  probably  rightly.  In  Melanch- 
thonis  E pistoles ,  1642,  iii,  64,  the  letter  is  dated  January  9th,  and  this  is  ac¬ 
cepted  by  Enders,  i,  345. 

4  Allen,  ep.  947. 


THE  REFORMATION 


221 


trines  there  are  various  opinions.  I  have  not  yet  read  his 
books.  I  have  written  of  him  to  the  Elector  Frederic  in 
my  dedication  to  that  prince  of  my  edition  of  Suetonius. ” 

This  letter  to  Frederic  was  probably  written  in  answer 
to  an  effort  of  that  nobleman  to  get  his  support  for  Luther 
in  the  coming  debate  at  Leipzig.1  In  his  reply2  Erasmus 
ventures  to  give  advice  as  to  how  to  treat  the  accused 
heretic,  persecuted  as  he  is  by  bad  men  who  never  want 
an  excuse  to  charge  others  with  errors.  “As  Luther  is 
entirely  unknown  to  me/’  he  continues,  “no  one  will  sus¬ 
pect  me  of  favoring  him.  I  have  not  read  his  works. 
But  his  life  is  approved  by  all  and  those  who  attack  him 
do  it  with  ferocity,  raging  against  him,  but  neither  warn¬ 
ing  nor  teaching  him,  as  though  they  thirsted  for  blood 
rather  than  for  the  salvation  of  souls.  All  error  is  not 
heresy,  for  there  are  few  writers  ancient  or  modern  in 
whom  some  error  cannot  be  found/’ — The  upshot  of  the 
letter  was  an  encouragement  not  to  give  Luther  up  to 
his  enemies. 

Frederic’s  reply,  dated  May  14,  15 19, 3  expressed  joy 
that  his  subject’s  works  are  not  condemned  by  good 
men.  Erasmus  acknowledged  this,4  at  the  same  time 
writing  to  Spalatin;5  and  Frederic  again  answered  in  two 
letters,  both  of  which  have  been  lost.  Their  tenor, 
however,  has  been  preserved  in  an  epistle  of  the  recipient 
to  Bishop  Fisher  of  Rochester,  dated  October  17,  1 5 1 9 :6 

The  Elector  Frederic  of  Saxony  has  sent  me  two  letters  in  answer 
to  mine.  By  his  protection  alone  Luther  lives.  He  said  that  he 
protected  him  rather  for  the  sake  of  the  cause  than  for  his  own 
person,  and  protested  that  he  could  not  allow  innocence  to  be  oppressed 
in  his  dominions  by  those  who  sought  their  own  profit  and  not  the 
things  of  Jesus  Christ. 

1  P.  Kalkoff:  Erasmus ,  Luther ,  und  Friedrich  der  Weise,  1919,  p.  22;  cf. 
Archiv  fur  Reformations  geschichte,  xvi,  134. 

2  Allen,  ep.  939;  L.  C.  ep.  141. 

3  Allen,  ep.  963;  L.  C.  ep.  145.  The  letter  was  carried  by  Jonas. 

4  Allen,  ep.  979. 

6  Allen,  ep.  978. 

8  L.  C.  ep.  188,  Allen,  ep.  1030. 


222 


ERASMUS 


With  his  letters  to  Spalatin  and  to  the  Elector  Frederic, 
Erasmus  sent  one  by  Jonas  to  Luther,  dated  May  30, 
1519.1  In  part  he  said: 

Dearest  brother  in  Christ,  your  epistle  showing  the  keenness  of 
your  mind  and  breathing  a  Christian  spirit,  was  most  pleasant  to 
me.  I  cannot  tell  you  what  a  commotion2  your  books  are  raising 
here  [at  Louvain].  These  men  cannot  be  by  any  means  disabused  . 
of  the  suspicion  that  your  works  are  written  by  my  aid  and  that  I 
am,  as  they  call  it,  the  standard-bearer  of  your  party.  ...  I  have 
testified  to  them  that  you  are  entirely  unknown  to  me,  that  I  have 
not  read  your  books  and  neither  approve  nor  disapprove  anything. 

.  .  .  I  try  to  keep  neutral,  so  as  to  help  the  revival  of  learning  as 
much  as  I  can.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  more  is  accomplished  by 
civil  modesty  than  by  impetuosity. 

Several  other  letters  written  at  this  time  give  a  strong 
idea  of  Erasmus’s  opinions,  though  it  is  noticeable  that 
his  tone  differs  considerably  to  different  correspondents. 
To  Mosellanus  he  wrote  of  a  theologian  at  Louvain  at¬ 
tacking  Luther  in  public  with  such  epithets  as  “ heretic” 
and  “Antichrist,”  though  in  fact,  added  the  writer, 
Luther  was  equipped  not  with  the  new  learning,  but 
with  the  old  scholasticism.3  To  Cardinal  Campeggio  he 
wrote  that  people  wrongly  suspected  him  of  writing 
Hutten’s  Nemo  and  some  tracts  of  Luther,  though  he 
has  not  even  read  them.4  To  Cardinal  Wolsey  he  sent 
a  much  more  elaborate  apology,5  saying,  in  part: 

They  accuse  me  of  writing  every  hateful  book  that  comes  out. 
You  might  say  that  it  was  the  very  essence  of  calumny  to  confound, 
as  they  do,  the  cause  of  sound  learning  with  that  of  Reuchlin  and 
Luther,  when  really  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  each  other.  .  .  . 
Luther  is  absolutely  unknown  to  me,  nor  have  I  had  time  to  read 
more  than  a  page  or  tw*o  of  his  books,  not  because  I  have  not  wanted 

1  Allen,  ep.  980;  L.  C.  ep.  155. 

2  “The  phrase ‘tragcedias  excitare’  meant, of  course,  no  more  than  ‘to  make 
a  stir’;  but  for  some  reason  it  has  become  the  fashion  to  render  thus  literally 
[i.e.  ‘to  make  a  tragedy’]  the  words  of  Erasmus.”  J.  H.  Lupton:  Colet  on 
Romans ,  p.  xiii.  If  the  sarcasm  is  intentional,  it  is  worthy  of  Gibbon. 

3  April  22,  1519.  Allen,  ep.  948. 

4  May  1,  Allen,  ep.  961. 

6  May  18,  Allen,  ep.  967;  L.  C.  ep.  149;  Nichols,  ep.  563 B,  iii,  p.  378,  with 
wrong  date,  1518. 


THE  REFORMATION 


223 


to,  but  because  my  other  occupations  have  not  given  me  leisure. 
If  he  has  written  well,  I  deserve  no  credit;  if  otherwise,  no  blame, 
since  of  his  writings  not  a  jot  is  mine.  Whoever  wishes  to  investigate 
this  matter  will  find  what  I  say  absolutely  true.  The  man’s  life  is 
approved  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  all,  and  the  fact  that  his 
character  is  so  upright  that  even  his  enemies  find  nothing  in  it  to 
slander,  must  prejudice  us  considerably  in  his  favor.  So  that  even 
if  I  had  abundant  leisure  to  read  the  writings  of  such  a  man,  I  should 
not  have  the  presumption  to  judge  them,  although  even  boys  nowa¬ 
days  rashly  pronounce  this  heretical  and  that  erroneous.  Indeed,  I 
have  sometimes  been  rather  opposed  to  Luther,  for  fear  that  a 
prejudice  might  arise  against  sound  learning,  which  I  would  not  have 
burdened  more  than  it  is;  nor  has  it  escaped  me  that  it  wTould  be  an 
invidious  task  to  tear  up  that  from  which  the  priests  and  monks 
reap  their  harvest. 

After  mentioning  by  name  some  of  the  early  tracts  of 
Luther,  Erasmus  goes  on  to  depict  the  lively  war  waged 
in  Germany  between  the  lovers  of  literature  and  the 
obscurantists.  Among  the  former,  Eoban,  Hutten,  and 
Beatus  Rhenanus  are  known  to  him  personally,  and  he 
thoroughly  approves  their  motives,  though  at  times  he 
has  counseled  them  to  moderate  their  mockery. 

To  the  Wittenberg  Reformer  Lang,  he  wrote:1 

All  good  men  love  the  freedom  of  Luther,  who,  I  doubt  not,  will 
have  sufficient  prudence  to  take  care  not  to  allow  the  affair  to  arouse 
faction  and  discord.  I  think  we  should  rather  strive  to  instil  Christ 
into  the  minds  of  men  than  to  fight  with  Christians;  neither  glory 
nor  victory  can  be  expected  from  them  unless  we  curb  the  tyranny 
of  the  Roman  see  and  its  satellites,  Dominicans,  Carmelites,  and 
Franciscans — I  mean  only  the  bad  ones. 

Even  at  this  time  it  is  plain  that  Erasmus  was  trying 
to  steer  a  straight  course  between  the  Lutheran  Scylla 
and  the  Roman  Charybdis.  Already,  at  this  early  date, 
there  were  fears  that  he  would  come  out  against  the 
Reform,  a  thing  which  Capito  begged  him  not  to  do.2 
At  the  same  time  his  colleagues  at  Louvain  believed  that 
he  was  on  the  verge  of  becoming  a  Lutheran,  and  they 
declared  war  on  him  as  such.  It  was  reported  that  when 

1  Allen,  ep.  983;  L.  C.  ep.  156. 

1  Capito  to  Erasmus,  Allen,  ep.  938;  L.  C.  ep.  139A,  i,  p.  570. 


224 


ERASMUS 


Erasmus  heard  of  the  Leipzig1  debate  between  Luther 
and  Eck,  in  which  the  former  had  maintained  that  popes 
and  councils  could  err  and  that  many  of  Huss’s  articles 
condemned  at  Constance  were  evangelical  and  Christian, 
he  had  exclaimed:  “I  fear  that  Martin  will  perish  for  his 
uprightness,  but  Eck  ought  to  be  called  Geek’’ — the 
Dutch  word  for  fool.2 

Erasmus  was  more  deeply  involved  than  ever  when 
his  letter  to  Luther,  quoted  above,  was  published  at 
Leipzig  in  June,  1519,  and  then  at  Augsburg  in  July.3 
His  saying,  in  this  epistle,  that  the  Bishop  of  Liege  was 
favorable  to  Luther,  though  probably  true  at  the  time 
it  was  written,4  soon  ceased  accurately  to  describe  the 
attitude  of  that  fickle  prelate.  The  bishop’s  anger,5 
especially  hot  after  the  matter  had  been  taken  up  at 
Rome,6  caused  Erasmus  promptly  to  republish  the  letter 
with  “episcopus  Leodiensis”  changed  to  “eximius  qui- 
dam,”7  and  to  complain  bitterly,  in  a  letter  to  Jonas8 
of  the  publication  of  the  missive  as  a  breach  of  confi¬ 
dence.  But  his  troubles  did  not  end  here.  The  in¬ 
quisitor,  James  Hochstraten,  found  the  letter  and 
thought  it  sufficient  to  convict  Erasmus  of  favoring 
Luther.9  The  universities  of  Louvain  and  Cologne  had 
now  declared  war  on  Wittenberg,10  while  Erard  de  la 

1  Erasmus  followed  the  course  of  the  debate;  he  heard  of  Eck’s  attack  as 
early  as  October  17,  1518  ( cf .  Allen,  ep.  872);  Mosellanus  informed  him  of  the 
preparations  for  the  debate,  January  6,  1 519,  Allen,  ep.  91 1 ;  and  Melanchthon 
sent  him  Eck’s  Excusatio  and  his  own  Dejensio  contra  Eckium ,  August,  1519, 
Corpus  Reformatorurtiy  i,  119. 

2  Luther  heard  this  story,  which  is  somewhat  doubtful,  from  a  corre¬ 
spondent  in  France,  and  wrote  it  to  Staupitz  on  October  3, 1519,  L.  C.  ep.  178. 

3  Enders  ii,  64-66;  L.  C.  ep.  155. 

4  Allen,  iii,  p.  168. 

6  Spoken  of  by  Aleander,  P.  Kalkoff:  Die  Depeschen  des  Nuntius  Aleander , 
1897,  p.  220. 

6  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes ,  English  transl.  ed.  by  Antrobus,  v.  398. 

7  In  the  Farrago  of  1519;  he  even  claimed  that  he  wrote  this  in  the  first 
place;  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  Colloquia,  i,  65. 

8  May  10,  1521.  G.  Kawerau:  Briefzvechsel  des  Justus  Jonas ,  1884  f,  i,  54; 
Allen,  ep.  1202. 

9  L.  C.  ep.  187. 

10  H.  de  Jongh:  V Ancienne  Faculte  de  Theologie  de  Louvain ,  191 1,  pp.  208  ff. 


THE  REFORMATION 


225 

Marck,  Bishop  of  Liege,  and  Adrian  of  Utrecht,  now 
Bishop  of  Tortosa,  applauded.1 

The  humanist  now  began  to  see  that  things  were  verg¬ 
ing  to  a  crisis.  His  main  interest  was  to  dissociate  the 
cause  he  had  most  at  heart,  that  of  “ sound  learning,55 
from  the  religious  conflict.  But  over  and  beyond  that 
he  was  determined,  if  possible,  not  to  let  an  innocent 
man  be  crushed  by  the  Pharisees  he  had  himself  been 
fighting  all  his  life.  His  plan  at  this  time  was  simply  to 
impose  silence  on  both  sides,  as  had,  indeed,  already  been 
proposed  by  the  papal  envoy  to  Saxony,  Charles  von 
Miltitz.2  It  is  possible  that  Erasmus  was  already  formu¬ 
lating  his  plan  for  a  committee  of  arbitration  under  con¬ 
ditions  which  should  insure  temperate  judgment  and 
appropriate  action.  Spalatin  had  once  proposed  leaving 
the  matter  to  the  judgment  of  Matthew  Lang,  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Salzburg,  with  whom  Erasmus  was  now  in 
communication,  though  by  whom  he  was  not,  at  this 
moment,  particularly  well  received.3 

Erasmus  hoped  to  find  powerful  support  for  his  medi¬ 
ating  policy  in  Albert  of  Hohenzollern,  Cardinal  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Mainz.  Notwithstanding  the  unsavory  past 
of  this  young  prelate,  and  his  patronage  of  the  indul¬ 
gence  trade,  it  was  thought  that  his  interest  in  learning 
would  make  him  a  fit  protector  of  the  Christian  Renais¬ 
sance.  Failing  to  see  Albert  on  visits  to  Mainz  in 
May  and  October,  1518,  Erasmus  dedicated  to  him  his 
Method  of  Theology ,4  which,  as  Hutten5  wrote,  was  greatly 
appreciated  by  the  prelate.  To  set  forth  his  program 
more  perfectly,  and  to  clear  himself,  Erasmus  addressed 
to  Albert,  on  October  19,  1519,  a  long  letter,6  protesting 
that  he  never  had  dealings  with  either  Reuchlin  or 

1  L.  C.  ep.  202. 

2  August  13,  1519,  to  Pope  Leo,  Allen,  ep.  1007. 

3  Preface  to  Paraphrase  to  Ephesians ,  to  Cardinal  Campeggio,  Allen,  ep. 
1062.  On  Spalatin’s  plan:  Kostlin-Kawerau:  Martin  Luther ,  1903,  i,  223. 
On  Matthew  Lang  and  Erasmus,  Enthoven,  ep.  26. 

4  LB.  v,  73  ff;  i,  p.  248;  Lond.  xxix,  29. 

5  Allen,  ep.  923. 

6  L.  C.  ep.  192,  Allen,  ep.  1023. 


226 


ERASMUS 


Luther,  that  the  latter  was  entirely  unknown  tc  him,  that 
he  had  never  even  read  his  books,  and  that  he  had 
advised  against  their  publication. 

Luther  wrote  me  a  right  Christian  letter  [he  continued],  at  least  to 
my  way  of  thinking,  and  I  answered,  incidentally  warning  the  man 
not  to  write  anything  seditious  or  insolent  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  nor 
anything  arrogant  or  fierce,  but  to  preach  the  evangelical  doctrine 
with  sincere  mind  and  with  all  gentleness.  This  I  did  civilly  in  order 
to  make  my  advice  more  effective.  I  argued  that  he  could  thus  best 
conciliate  the  opinion  of  his  favorers,  from  which  some  have  gathered 
that  I  favored  him,  although  no  one  except  myself  had  ever  admon¬ 
ished  him. 

How  much  better  it  would  be,  the  writer  goes  on  to 
set  forth,  to  have  a  Christian  in  error  corrected  than 
driven  to  destruction;  but  Luther’s  enemies  had  acted 
most  un-Christianly  toward  him.  If  the  Saxon  had 
spoken  immoderately  of  indulgences  and  of  the  power  of 
the  pope,  his  opponents,  Alvarez,1  Prierias,  and  Cajetan, 
had  surpassed  his  licence.  In  fact,  Luther  was  rather 
imprudent  than  impious,  charged  as  he  was  with  lack 
of  reverence  for  Aquinas  and  for  the  Mendicant  Orders, 
and  with  diminishing  the  profits  of  the  trade  in  papal 
pardons,  and  with  putting  the  gospel  above  the  school¬ 
men.  Intolerable  heresies  those!  “They  cry  heresy  at 
whatever  displeases  them  or  is  beyond  their  comprehen¬ 
sion,  and  make  it  heresy  to  know  Greek  and  to  write 
good  Latin.”  Through  all  Erasmus’s  hedging  in  this 
letter,  his  preference  for  Luther,  and  his  desire,  if  not  to 
help  him,  at  least  to  keep  him  safe  from  unjust  persecu¬ 
tion,  is  apparent. 

This  letter  was  intrusted  to  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  and 
by  him  shown  to  several  friends.  Luther  saw  a  manu¬ 
script  copy  of  it  in  January,  1520,  and  was  much  pleased 
with  it.  “In  it,”  he  said,2  “Erasmus  shows  his  solicitude 

1  This  was  not  the  mediaeval  theologian  mentioned  by  Allen  in  his  note 
loc.  cit.y  but  John  Alvarez  (1488-1557),  a  son  of  the  Duke  of  Alva,  a  Dominican 
who  taught  at  Salamanca  and  was  later  made  Bishop  of  Cordova  and  cardinal. 
See  note  L.  C.  i,  242.  He  had  written  to  Erasmus  earlier,  Allen,  ep,  506. 

2  Enders,  ii,  304-306.  L.  C.  ep.  220. 


ALBERT  OF  HOHENZOLLERN,  CARDINAL  ARCHBISHOP 

ELECTOR  OF  MAINZ 

From  a  Painting  by  Lucas  Cranach 


THE  REFORMATION 


227 


for  me,  and  defends  me  nobly,  though  he  seems  to  do 
nothing  less  than  to  take  my  part,  so  dextrous  is  he 
according  to  his  wont.  Perhaps  the  letter  will  be 
printed.”  It  was  indeed  soon  printed  by  Melchior 
Lotter  at  Wittenberg.1  Erasmus  naturally  took  this  in¬ 
discretion  of  Hutten’s  very  ill;  if  chance  gave  the  letter 
to  the  press,  he  exclaimed,  it  was  most  unlucky;  if  per¬ 
fidy,  it  was  more  than  Punic.2  In  sending  the  letter  to 
the  press  before  he  had  even  shown  it  to  its  addressee, 
it  is  probable  that  Hutten  thought  he  was  only  carrying 
out  the  wishes  of  the  writer;  certainly  the  epistle  was 
well  adapted  for  public  reading.3 

Provoked  as  he  was  by  the  Reformers,  Erasmus  was 
still  more  enraged  by  the  Catholics,  and  especially  by 
his  fellow  theologians  at  Louvain.  These  “ champions 
of  bad  letters, ”  as  he  called  them,  issued,  on  August  31, 
1519,  a  condemnation  of  a  number  of  passages  from 
Luther’s  works,  which  was  solemnly  ratified  by  the 
whole  university  on  November  7th.4 

Luther  answered  Louvain  and  Cologne  in  March,  1520: 
“They  have  condemned  not  only  me,”  he  breaks  forth,5 
“but  Occam,  Mirandola,  Valla,  and  Reuchlin,  to  say 
nothing  of  Wesel,  Lefevre  d’Etaples,  and  Erasmus,  that 
ram  caught  by  the  horns  in  the  bushes!”  Erasmus  read 
the  answer  and  wrote  Melanchthon  that  it  pleased  him 
wonderfully,  for  it  had  begun  to  make  his  colleagues 
ashamed  of  their  premature  pronouncement,  but  that  he 
wished  his  name  had  been  left  out,  as  it  only  brought 
odium  on  him  and  did  not  help  Luther.6  His  opinion  of 
the  Wittenberg  professor  was  certainly  more  favorable 

1  It  was  also  printed  at  Leipzig  in  1519.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  i,  93. 

8  1520.  Allen,  ep.  1152. 

8  Hutteni  Opera ,  ed.  Booking,  ii,  311;  P.  Kalkoff:  Ulrich  von  Hutteny  1920, 
p.  521. 

4  Kostlin-Kawerau,  i,  266.  H.  de  Jongh:  U Ancienne  Faculte  de  Theologie 

de  Louvain ,  1911,  pp.  208  ff. 

6  fFerke,  Weimar,  vi,  183. 

6  Corpus  Reformatoruviy  i,  206.  On  a  lost  letter  from  Luther  to  Erasmus,  of 
May,  1520,  perhaps  in  answer  to  the  one  from  Erasmus  to  Melanchthon,  cf. 
Enders,  ii,  397.  L.  C.  ep.  254. 


228 


ERASMUS 


than  he  thought  it  prudent  to  avow  in  his  letters,  at 
least  in  those  designed  for  publication.  A  disciple, 
Hermann  Hump,  who  lived  with  him  during  the  last  half 
of  1519  and  the  first  months  of  1520,  wrote  Luther  on 
March  14,  1520,  that  Erasmus  almost  adored  him,  though 
he  kept  his  opinion  for  his  table  companions.1  Indeed, 
the  humanist  himself  wrote  Jonas,2  April  9,  1520:  “I 
would  not  have  the  Dominicans  know  what  a  friend  I 
am  to  Luther.  This  university  has  contracted  incurable 
madness.  Atensis,  indeed,  has  perished,  but  Egmond 
and  Latomus  act  more  odiously  than  he.”  The  alter¬ 
cation  with  Egmond  waxed  very  hot  indeed  about  this 
time,  the  special  cause  of  it  being  Erasmus’s  old  letter 
to  Luther  “badly  understood  and  worse  interpreted.”3 
The  quarrel  finally  reached  such  a  point  that  the  rector 
of  the  university  summoned  both  parties  to  a  public 
conference  to  settle  their  differences.  One  of  the  wit¬ 
tiest  bits  of  Erasmus’s  writings  is  the  account  of  this 
conference  for  his  friend  More.4  Asked  to  make  a  specific 
complaint,  Erasmus  said  that  Egmond  had  accused  him 
of  favoring  Luther,  which  was  a  lie.  Egmond  then  lost 
his  temper,  burst  into  foul  language,  called  Erasmus  an 
old  turncoat,  Luther’s  harbinger,  a  falsifier  of  the  Bible, 
a  forger  of  papal  letters,  and  a  slanderer  who  had  accused 
him,  Egmond,  of  being  drunk.  Erasmus  demurely  ad¬ 
mitted  the  last  charge,  though  he  said  he  only  spoke  of 
it  as  a  matter  of  common  knowledge,  but  added  that, 
though  Egmond  might  shout  against  Luther  till  he  split 
for  all  he  cared,  he  must  not,  in  future,  mix  his,  Erasmus’s, 
name  in  the  affair.  To  Egmond’s  demand  that  he  write 
something  against  the  heretic,  or  at  least  publish  an 
opinion  that  he  had  been  successfully  refuted  by  Lou¬ 
vain,  the  humanist  replied  that,  judging  in  the  same 

1  Enders,  ii,  350-352.  L.  C.  ep.  236. 

1  Kawerau:  Briefivechsel  des  Justus  Jonas ,  i,  43.  L.  C.  ep.  245.  Allen, 
ep.  1088. 

8  Allen,  ep.  1033. 

4  L.  C.  ep.  313.  Louvain,  November,  1520.  Allen,  ep.  1162. 


THE  REFORMATION 


229 

way,  his  opponent  must  be  a  Lutheran  himself,  for  he 
had  not  written  anything  against  Luther. 

On  June  15,  1520,  the  bull,  Exsurge  Domine ,  threaten¬ 
ing  to  excommunicate  Luther  if  he  did  not  recant  within 
sixty  days  after  its  promulgation  in  Germany,  was  signed 
by  Leo  at  Rome,  and  intrusted  to  Eck,  who  posted  it 
during  the  last  days  of  September  in  the  dioceses  of 
Brandenburg  and  Merseburg.  About  the  same  time 
Aleander  was  dispatched  from  Rome  to  the  Netherlands 
to  meet  Charles,  who  was  coming  from  Spain  to  be 
crowned  emperor,  in  order  to  secure  his  support  for  the 
Church  in  suppressing  the  heretic. 

Erasmus  now  resolved  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  prevent 
extreme  measures  being  taken.  Judging  that  it  would 
be  both  inexpedient  for  the  attainment  of  his  end  and 
dangerous  to  himself  to  come  out  openly  for  Luther,  he 
went  to  work  in  a  quiet  but  persistent  way  to  influence 
persons  in  power  to  act  with  leniency,  and  especially  to 
moderate  the  passions  of  the  leaders  of  each  side.  Luther 
and  his  friends  sinned  in  the  violence  of  their  invective, 
but  he  hoped  to  bring  them  to  reason.1  Their  opponents, 
the  monks,  or  “Pharisees,”  as  he  called  them,  were 
beyond  the  appeals  of  reason;  so  he  merely  worked  to 
thwart  them  of  the  bloody  triumph  they  desired. 

When  he  later  became  Luther’s  enemy  he  skillfully 
covered  up  as  much  as  possible  the  traces  of  his  activity 
in  the  summer  of  1520,  and,  as  he  had  acted  with  caution, 
it  was  not  hard  to  do  so.  It  is  sometimes  difficult  to 
determine  exactly  how  far  his  efforts  went.  To  CEco- 
lampadius  he  wrote,  for  example,  on  May  15,  1520, 
that  Luther’s  books  would  have  been  burned  in  England 
but  for  the  intervention  of  “a  humble  and  vigilant 
friend.  Not  that  I  undertake  to  judge  Luther’s  books,” 
he  qualifies,  “but  this  tyranny  by  no  means  pleases  me.”2 

One  of  the  first  potentates  whom  he  endeavored  to 

1  He  wrote  Spalatin,  July,  1520,  that  he  hoped  Luther  would  moderate  his 
language.  Allen,  ep.  1119. 

2  So  in  a  letter  to  Melanchthon,  L.  C.  epp.  257,  258;  Allen,  epp.  1102,  1 1 13. 


230 


ERASMUS 


influence  to  act  as  mediator  was  his  old  friend  Henry  VIII 
of  England,  who  spent  part  of  the  summer  at  Calais 
negotiating  with  Francis  I  and  Charles  V.  Erasmus 
joined  him  in  July,  and,  in  his  own  words,  “talked  some 
of  writing  against  Luther,  but  more  of  means  of  making 
peace  in  the  Church/’1 

Erasmus’s  efforts  apparently  met  with  a  somewhat 
chilly  reception,  for  on  September  9th  he  wrote  Gelden- 
hauer2  that  he  feared  the  worst  for  poor  Luther,  so  much 
were  the  princes  and  Leo  incensed  against  him.  Would 
that  Luther  had  followed  his  advice,  for  the  formidable 
bull  has  already  been  published  against  him,  though  Leo 
had  forbidden  this  to  be  done  (!).  The  source  of  the 
whole  affair,  according  to  the  humanist,  was  hatred  of 
learning  and  the  stupidity  of  the  priests.  He  assured  his 
correspondent,  probably  not  without  reason,  that  he 
(Erasmus)  might  get  a  bishopric  if  only  he  would  write 
against  Luther. 

The  bull  had  indeed  been  published  in  Germany 
during  the  summer,  both  by  supporters  of  the  pope  and, 
with  a  railing  commentary,  by  Hutten,  who  thought 
thus  to  help  Luther  in  the  eyes  of  his  countrymen.3  The 

1  Lond.  xxiii,  6,  col.  1229.  L.B.  ep.  650.  On  this  visit  cf.  Meyer,  p.  45; 
Kalkoff:  Fcrmittlungspolitik,  p.  19  ff.  It  took  place  between  July  6th  and 
30th.  About  this  time  he  saw  his  friend  More  at  Bruges,  Allen,  1184,  En- 
thoven,  p.  10.  Various  rumors  of  this  interview  with  Henry  got  out,  the  most 
interesting  of  which  is  found  in  a  letter  from  Myconius  to  Clivanus,  November 
20,  1520,  published  by  Hess:  Erasmus  von  Rotterdamy  1790,  ii,  607:  “I  will 
tell  you  something  of  Erasmus.  He  is  a  scoundrel.  Hear  what  he  did.  He 
was  summoned  by  the  king  of  England  to  take  counsel  while  he  was  here. 
The  king  slapped  him  on  the  back  and  said;  ‘Why  don’t  you  defend  that  good 
man,  Luther?’  Erasmus  answered,  ‘  Because  I  am  not  enough  of  a  theologian; 
since  Louvain  has  given  me  the  robe  of  a  grammarian  I  meddle  with  no  such 
business.’  After  many  words  the  King  said,  ‘You  are  a  good  fellow,  Erasmus,’ 
and  sent  him  away  with  fifty  ducats.  Then  Erasmus  went  to  Frankfort.  .  .  . 
He  intended  to  go  on  to  Basle,  but  was  called  back  by  the  king  of  Spain.” 
L.  C.  ep.  338.  Erasmus  was  present  at  the  splendid  entry  of  Charles  V  into 
Bruges  on  July  25,  1520.  P.  Kalkoff:  Ulrich  von  Hutten ,  1920,  p.  498. 

2  Allen,  ep.  1141.  Cf.  his  letter  to  Chieregato,  September  13,  1520,  Allen, 
ep.  1144. 

3  Bibliography  of  the  first  editions  of  the  bull,  Exsurge  Domine ,  in  Zeit- 
schrift  fiir  Biicherfreundey  ix,  1918,  pp.  187  ff;  x,  1919,  p.  19. 


THE  REFORMATION 


231 


officials,  however,  were  not  far  behind.  Aleander  and 
Caracciolo,  the  papal  nuncios  who  had  been  dispatched 
from  Rome  on  July  27th,1  arrived  in  Cologne  in  Sep¬ 
tember,  and  published  the  bull  here  on  the  22d.  Four 
days  later  Aleander  was  in  Antwerp  for  the  same  pur¬ 
pose,  and  on  September  28th  he  had  here  his  first  inter¬ 
view  with  Charles  of  Spain,  from  whom  he  promptly 
secured  a  decree  against  the  Lutherans  in  the  Nether¬ 
lands.  This  was  doubtless  a  bitter  blow  to  Erasmus, 
who  wrote  the  Reformer  that  the  court  was  filled  with 
“ beggar-tyrants’’  (his  favorite  epithet  for  the  mendi¬ 
cants)  and  that  there  was  no  hope  in  the  emperor.2 
Indeed,  it  is  remarkable  that  he  who  so  freely  eulogized 
many  of  the  potentates  of  the  day  should  seldom  have 
had  a  good  word  to  say  for  his  own  sovereign.  A  story 
was  current  that  he  said  of  Charles  and  Ferdinand, 
“These  two  cubs  will  make  Germany  smart  some  day.”3 

After  this  triumph  the  indefatigable  legate  proceeded 
to  Louvain,  where  he  posted  the  bull  on  October  8th, 
solemnly  burned  the  heretic’s  books,  and  made  a  violent 
speech  attacking  Erasmus.  This  was  followed  the  next 
day  by  a  renewed  attack  from  Egmond  and  by  the  ex¬ 
clusion  of  Erasmus  and  Dorp,  his  only  supporter  among 
the  professors,  from  the  theological  faculty.4  For  these 
acts  Aleander  and  Egmond  were  bitterly  scored  in  an 
anonymous  pamphlet,  the  Acta  Academics  Lovaniensis, 
which  has  been  attributed  to  several  writers,  but  was 
probably  from  the  pen  of  Erasmus.5  The  style,  the 

1  For  these  dates  and  facts,  Kalkoff:  Luthers  romischer  Prozess.  Rom.  1906. 

2  Luther  to  Spalatin,  October  1 1, 1520.  Enders,  ii,  491,  cf.  iii,  90.  In  Luther’s 
phrase  “mendicotyranni”  we  recognize  Erasmus’s  favorite,  7r Tuxorvpawoc. 
L.  C.  ep.  304,  cf.  ep.  406. 

8  Luthers  Tischreden  in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung,  ed.  Kroker,  No.  498. 
Letter  of  Besold  to  V.  Dietrich,  April  11,  1542,  Archiv  fur  Reformations- 
geschichte,  xix,  1922,  95.  An  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  Erasmus 
never  praised  Charles  is  to  be  found  in  the  Institutio  Christiani  Principis, 
which  was,  however,  written  in  1515,  when  Charles  was  a  mere  boy. 

4  P.  Kalkoff:  Anfange  der  Gegenreformation,  ii,  35  ff.  Also  the  article  by  the 
same  scholar  to  be  found  in  Zwingli’s  Werke ,  vii,  409. 

5  The  proof  of  the  authorship  given  in  P.  Kalkoff :  Fermittlungspolitik,  23  ff. 
The  similarity  of  the  style  of  the  Acta  to  that  of  Erasmus  was  early  noticed. 


232 


ERASMUS 


occurrence  of  expressions  used  in  his  letters  at  that  time, 
the  trend  of  the  satire,  the  minute  acquaintance  with 
circumstances  known  better  to  Erasmus  than  to  anyone 
else,  and  the  publication  of  the  pamphlet  shortly  after 
the  events  recorded  and  at  Cologne,  while  he  was  in  that 
city,  all  tend  to  prove  that  he  was  the  author.  The  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  tract  was  not  only  revenge  on  Aleander,  but 
also  to  weaken  the  position  of  that  envoy  by  casting 
doubts  on  the  legitimacy  of  his  nunciature  and  on  the 
authenticity  of  the  bull,  and  by  assuring  the  public  that 
the  Romanists  were  able  only  to  burn  Luther’s  books, 
not  to  refute  them. 

Shortly  after  the  scene  at  Louvain  Erasmus  followed 
the  emperor  to  Cologne  in  order  to  meet  two  men 
reckoned  as  the  chief  supporters  of  the  new  movement, 
Francis  von  Sickingen  and  the  Elector  Frederic  of 
Saxony.1  In  the  current,  but  unjustified,  idealization  of 
Sickingen,  he  is  represented  as  the  perfect  knight  of  Christ 
and  of  Germany,  standing  boldly  amid  the  forces  of  dark¬ 
ness  for  the  truth,  for  the  Gospel,  and  for  the  fatherland. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  he  was  a  self-seeking,  brusque  soldier, 
capable,  when  he  was  put  in  command  of  an  army  against 
France,  of  intriguing  with  the  enemy  for  his  own  per¬ 
sonal  profit.2  By  his  friend  Ulrich  von  Hutten  he  had 
been  sufficiently  interested  in  the  Lutheran  cause  to  see 
in  it  a  powerful  support  to  his  anti-imperial  and  anti- 
Spanish  policy,  and  he  therefore  tried  to  protect  Luther, 
though  he  was,  in  fact,  soon  duped,  or  seduced,  by  abler 
politicians  than  himself,  Aleander  and  Glapion.  But, 


V adianische  Briefs ammlung  ( Mitteilungen  zur  vaterldndischen  Geschichte,  25. 
St.  Gallen.  1890  ff)  ii,  346.  The  pamphlet  is  reprinted  in  Luther’s  Werke , 
Erlangen  edition,  Opera  latina  varii  argument i,  iv,  308-314.  Cf.  De  Jongh: 
U Ancienne  Faculte  de  Theologie  de  Louvain ,  p.  241. 

1  On  Erasmus  at  Cologne,  Briefwechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus ,  hg.  von 
Horawitz  und  Hartfelder,  1886,  Nos.  181,  200;  L.  C.  ep.  332,  438;  Enthoven, 
ep.  26.  LB.  ep.  709. 

2  The  older  literature,  the  biographies  of  Hutten  by  Strauss,  and  of  Sick¬ 
ingen  by  Ulmann,  carried  this  idealization  to  an  extreme.  See  W.  Friedens- 
burg:  “Franz  von  Sickingen.”  1m  Morgenrot  der  Reformation ,  1912,  pp. 
557-666;  P.  Kalkoff:  Ulrich  von  Hutten  und  die  Reformation ,  1920. 


THE  REFORMATION 


233 


though  they  did  little  real  service  to  the  Evangelical 
cause,  the  two  knights,  Hutten  and  Sickingen,  were  now 
outwardly  zealous  for  it.  Erasmus’s  more  cautious 
method  of  protecting  Luther  from  unjust  condemnation 
seemed  to  them  little  better  than  cowardly  because  of 
its  calculated  moderation.  Hutten  accordingly  ad¬ 
dressed  to  his  old  and  formerly  revered  friend  a  rather 
insulting  invitation  to  keep  safe,1  on  August  15,  1520: 

When  Reuchlin’s  affair  got  hot  you  seemed  in  more  weak  terror  of 
those  fellows  [the  Roman  Inquisitors]  than  you  ought  to  have  been. 
And  now  in  Luther’s  case  you  try  hard  to  persuade  his  enemies  that 
you  are  as  far  as  possible  from  defending  the  common  good  of 
Christianity,  while  they  know  that  you  believe  just  the  opposite 
from  what  you  say. 

And  again  on  November  13th:2 

Fly,  fly!  Keep  yourself  safe  for  us!  I  am  in  sufficient,  even  infinite 
peril,  but  my  mind  is  inured  to  danger  and  to  the  vicissitudes  of 
fortune,  while  with  you  it  is  different.  Those  fellowTs  all  cry  out  that 
you  are  the  author  of  this  business  and  that  from  you  as  from  a 
fountain-head  has  flowed  whatever  now  displeases  Leo;  they  say 
that  you  went  before  us,  that  you  taught  us,  that  you  first  incited 
the  minds  of  men  with  the  love  of  liberty  and  that  we  are  your 
followers. 

In  vain  did  a  common  friend,  Capito,  beg  Hutten  to 
follow  a  more  peaceful  course  and  especially  to  spare 
true  friends  like  the  old  humanist.  While  still  breathing 
out  fire  and  slaughter,  Hutten  replied  that  for  him  to 
leave  the  fatherland  in  slavery  would  be  dishonorable.3 
At  first  he  wondered  that  Erasmus  did  not  reply  to  his 
first  letter4  but,  from  the  Ebernburg,  near  Worms,  he 
wrote  Nesen:  “The  people  at  Cologne  have  recently 
sent  me  letters,  but  Erasmus  has  sent  nothing,  fearing, 
like  a  coward,  that  what  he  writes  may  be  betrayed.” 
In  this  case,  a  most  reasonable  fear!5 

1  Hutteni  Opera ,  ed.  Booking,  1859,  i,  p.  367.  L.  C.  ep.  285;  Allen,  ep.  1135. 

2  Booking,  i,  423;  L.  C.  ep.  336,  Allen,  ep.  1161. 

3  Hutten  to  Capito,  August  28,  1520,  Zeitschrift  des  Fuldaer  Geschichts- 
vereins,  viii,  1909,  pp.  52  ff;  Kalkoff:  Hutten ,  1920,  pp.  241  f. 

4  “Miror,  Erasmus  an  scripserit,”  ibid. 

5  Hutten  to  Nesen,  Kalkoff:  Hutten ,  1920,  p.  573. 


*34 


ERASMUS 


Far  different  in  character  was  Frederic,  well  named 
the  Wise,  with  whom  Erasmus  came  into  direct  com¬ 
munication  during  his  three  weeks’  stay  at  Cologne  in 
November,  1520.  Ever  since  the  letters  exchanged  be¬ 
tween  the  two,  eighteen  months  before,  the  elector  had 
been  trying  to  get  the  support  of  the  humanist  in  order 
to  make  as  good  a  front  as  possible  against  the  assaults 
of  the  partisans  of  the  pope.  The  several  imperial  em¬ 
bassies  at  Wittenberg  in  1520  may  have  brought  news  of 
the  humanist,  and  on  the  other  side  Frederic  selected  as 
his  envoy  a  particularly  trustworthy  young  poet,  now  in 
the  service  of  Maximilian  of  Zevenberghen,  one  John 
Alexander  Brassicanus  by  name.  By  him  he  sent  an 
invitation  to  the  great  scholar  to  come  to  Wittenberg, 
and  he  also  sent,  as  a  token  of  his  esteem,  a  medallion 
of  himself  as  Lieutenant  of  the  Empire.1 

While  he  declined  the  invitation  to  Wittenberg, 
Erasmus  counted  on  seeing  Frederic  at  the  imperial 
coronation,  which  took  place  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  on 
October  23d.  As  the  elector,  however,  was  detained 
while  on  his  way  thither  by  an  attack  of  gout,  he  waited 
at  Cologne,  and  there,  on  October  31st,  had  an  audience 
with  his  imperial  master,  who  arrived  on  October  28th.2 
At  this  meeting,  in  the  sacristy  of  the  cathedral,  the 
emperor  promised  that  he  would  allow  the  way  of  the 
law  to  which  he  had  already  been  committed  by  his 
“capitulation,”  or  agreement  signed  at  his  election. 
When  an  emperor  was  chosen  it  was  customary  for  the 
electors  not  only  to  demand  gratifications  of  money,  but 
also  political  concessions  of  all  sorts,  and  Frederic,  who 
had  refused  the  donative,  insisted,  having  Luther’s  case  in 
mind,  that  no  subject  of  the  Empire  should  be  outlawed 
or  condemned  without  due  hearing.  Charles,  therefore, 
merely  confirmed  in  this  promise  his  previous  undertaking. 

1  On  all  this  P.  Kalkoff:  Erasmus ,  Luther ,  und  Friedrich  der  Weise,  1919,  PP* 
22,  87  f;  The  medallion  is  reproduced  in  P.  Schreckenbach  und  F.  Neubert, 
Martin  Luther ,2  1918,  p.  54. 

1  He  hastened  from  Aix  on  account  of  the  outbreak  of  the  plague. 
J.  Paquier:  Lettres  de  Jerome  Aleandre,  1910,  p.  61. 


THE  REFORMATION 


^35 


On  Sunday,  November  4th,  the  papal  legates  visited 
Frederic  at  his  lodgings  on  the  Square  of  the  Three 
Kings,  and  demanded  that  the  heretic’s  books  be  burned 
and  that  he  himself  be  either  punished  by  the  elector,  or 
be  delivered  to  them  bound.  The  politic  old  prince  gave 
them  one  of  those  evasive  answers  in  which  he  was  an 
adept,  disclaiming  any  intention  of  protecting  heresy, 
but  announcing  that  he  would  not  deliver  up  an  uncon¬ 
demned  man.  The  next  day  Frederic  sent  for  Erasmus, 
and  their  conversation  has  been  carefully  noted  by  Spa- 
latin,1  who  was  present.  There  was  a  large  open  fire 
before  which  the  humanist  took  his  stand,  warming  his 
hands  at  the  blaze  behind  his  back  while  facing  the 
benign  and  incorruptible  old  statesman  for  whom  he  had 
already  conceived  a  high  admiration.  The  elector 
asked  the  scholar  to  use  his  native  tongue,  the  Dutch 
(which  he  called  Belgian),  but  Erasmus  preferred  to 
speak  Latin.  This  the  prince  understood,  though  he  did 
not  venture  to  speak  it,  but  put  his  questions  through 
Spalatin.  The  first  and  most  important  of  these  was 
whether  Luther  had  erred.  The  man  so  bluntly  inter¬ 
rogated  at  first  closed  his  lips  with  a  smack  and  kept 
them  compressed  for  some  minutes,  but  then,  as  the 
elector,  according  to  his  custom  when  discussing  serious 
matters,  regarded  him  with  grave,  wide-open  eyes,  he 
suddenly  burst  into  these  words:  “Luther  has  erred  in 
two  points — in  attacking  the  crown  of  the  pope  and  the 
bellies  of  the  monks.”  The  winged  word  flew  throughout 
Germany  and  helped  the  accused  not  a  little. 

Satisfied  with  having  planted  the  perfect  epigram, 
Erasmus  took  his  leave  and  walked  wfith  Spalatin  to  the 
house  of  Count  Hermann  of  Neuenahr,  Provost  of 

1  Spalatin’s  fullest  account  exists  in  German  MS.  at  Gotha,  but  has  never 
been  published  in  the  original.  Ludwig  von  Seckendorf  translated  it  into 
Latin  and  published  it  with  the  wrong  date,  December  5th,  in  his  Historia 
Luther anismiy  of  which  I  consult  the  second  edition,  1694,  i,  125  f,  section  34, 
81.  A  much  briefer  account  is  found  in  Spalatins  Nachlass,  ed.  Neudecker 
und  Preller,  1851,  i,  p.  1 3 1,  and  something  may  be  found  in  Luther’s  Tisch- 
reden,  Weimar,  i,  p.  13 1. 


ERASMUS 


236 

Cologne  and  a  disciple  of  the  Reformer,  and  there  he 
drew  up  a  series  of  short  propositions  called  Axioms 1  to 
serve  as  a  basis  for  the  settlement  of  the  whole  affair. 
In  this  document  he  showed  most  strongly  his  sympathy 
with  much  of  the  Reformer's  program,  and  his  wish  to 
be  of  service  to  it.  He  stated:  That  the  origin  of  the 
persecution  was  hatred  of  learning  and  love  of  tyranny; 
that  the  method  of  procedure  corresponded  with  the 
origin,  consisting,  namely,  of  clamor,  conspiracy,  bitter 
hatred,  and  virulent  writing;  that  the  agents  put  in 
charge  of  the  prosecution  were  suspect;  that  all  good 
men  and  lovers  of  the  Gospel  were  very  little  offended 
with  Luther;  that  certain  men  had  abused  the  easy-going 
kindness  of  the  pope.  The  author  advised  that  precipi¬ 
tate  counsels  be  avoided,  as  the  fierceness  of  the  bull  had 
scandalized  all  and  was  unworthy  of  the  gentleness  of 
Christ's  vicar,  and  that  the  cause  be  examined  by  impar¬ 
tial  and  experienced  persons.  Only  two  universities  had 
condemned  Luther,  and  they,  though  condemning,  had 
not  refuted  him.  The  accused  demanded  only  justice  in 
submitting  himself  to  impartial  judges,  and  his  motives 
were  pure,  whereas  those  of  his  adversaries  were  corrupt 
and  violent.  The  honor  of  the  pope  and  the  cause  of 
evangelical  truth  required  that  Luther  be  tried  by 
grave,  unsuspected  men  of  mature  judgment.  Erasmus 
added  orally  that  Luther  had  been  too  violent;  and 
Spalatin  promised  to  remonstrate  with  him.2 

Frederic  was  both  surprised  and  pleased  at  the  bold¬ 
ness  of  the  Axioms.  He  sent  his  adviser  a  chamois 
gown,  but,  if  we  may  trust  a  bit  of  gossip,  said  to  his 
chaplain,  Spalatin:  “What  sort  of  a  man  is  Erasmus, 
anyway?  One  never  knows  where  he  is."  With  the 
elector  was  his  cousin,  Duke  George  of  Albertine  Saxony, 
who,  as  a  sincere  Catholic,  was  much  disappointed  in 
Erasmus's  attitude,  and,  on  hearing  the  Axioms ,  burst 
out:  “The  plague  take  him.  You  can  never  tell  what 

1  Printed  in  Lutheri  opera  latina  varii  argumentiy  v,  238  ff. 

2  LB.  x,  1659. 


THE  REFORMATION 


237 


he  means.  I  really  prefer  the  Wittenbergers,  for  at  least 
they  say  yes  or  no/’1  When  the  legates  called  on  Frederic 
on  November  6th,  they  received  a  complete  refusal  of 
their  demands.2 

Though  intensely  annoyed  at  the  part  played  by  the 
humanist,  Aleander  judged  it  prudent  to  win  him  over 
if  possible,  and  accordingly  invited  him  several  times  to 
dinner.  Erasmus  always  declined  these  invitations,  fear¬ 
ing,  as  he  said  later,  that  he  would  be  poisoned.3 

He  continued  to  try  to  influence  the  emperor  and  his 
counsellors,  not  directly  by  personal  conversations,  but 
through  a  Dominican  named  John  Faber,  with  whom  he 
had  been  in  touch  at  Louvain.  The  friar,  with  his  aid 
and  at  his  instigation,  drew  up  a  memorial4  entitled: 
The  Advice  of  One  Desirous  of  the  Peace  of  the  Church. 
He  points  out  that,  after  all,  the  peace  of  Christianity 
is  the  main  consideration  and  that  pious  men  should  act 
with  an  eye  to  this  only,  without  considering  exactly 
what  Luther  deserved.  As  in  the  Axioms ,  so  here,  Faber 
traced  the  origin  of  the  persecution  to  the  hatred  of  good 

1  Luthers  Tischreden,  Weimar,  iv,  no.  4899.  This  account,  in  Luther’s  table 
talk  twenty  years  after  the  event  is  intrinsically  probable,  though  colored  by 
Luther’s  dislike  of  Erasmus.  The  chamois  gown  is  also  mentioned  in  one  of 
Erasmus’s  epistles,  Lond.  xviii,  37,  LB.  ep.  709,  as  a  damask  gown. 

*  Narratio  per  Henricum  Priorem  Gundensem  [i.e.,  of  Ghent]  scripta.  Lutheri 
opera  lot.  varii  arg.  v,  249. 

3  Allen,  ep.  1188. 

4  On  Faber,  N.  Paulus:  Die  deutschen  Dominikaner  im  Kampfe  gegen 
Luther  ( Erauterungen  und  Erganzungen  z u  Janssens  Geschichte  des  Deutschen 
Volkes ),  1906,  pp.  301  ff.  In  my  judgment  Paulus  proves  that  Faber  was  the 
author  of  the  Consilium  cujusdam,  though  Maurenbrecher  and  KalkofF 
( V ermitilungspolitik  des  Erasmus ,  1  ff)  attribute  it  to  Erasmus,  and  its  style 
was  early  seen  to  resemble  his:  cf.  Vadianische  Briefs ammlung,  ii,  346. 
Erasmus  never  admitted  it,  though  he  praised  it  in  letters — e.g .,  Lond.  xxvii 
2,  LB.  ep.  1195;  and  almost  avows  it  as  his  own,  Allen,  ep.  1199.  He  denied 
it,  however,  Lond.  xvii,  19;  LB.  ep.  603.  The  work  was  also  attributed  to 
Zwingli,  and  is  now  most  conveniently  found  in  the  old  edition  of  his  works  by 
Schuler  und  Schulthess,  1832,  iii,  1  IF,  and  translated  into  English  in  The  Latin 
Works  and  Correspondence  of  H.  Zwingli ,  ed.  S.  M.  Jackson,  1912,  pp.  57  ff. 
Schlottmann,  in  an  able  work  anticipating  many  of  Kalkoff’s  positions, 
Erasmus  Redivivus ,  2  vols.,  1883,  1889,  i,  p.  230,  attributes  the  Concilium  to 
Erasmus,  but  Allen,  iv,  357,  accepts  the  joint  authorship  of  Erasmus  and 
Faber. 


ERASMUS 


238 

letters,  and  observed  that  only  two  universities  had  con¬ 
demned,  and  that  without  refuting,  Luther.  The  bull  is 
disliked  by  all  who  love  Leo,  and  while  the  papal  agents 
are  burning  Luther’s  books  they  are  spreading  his 
opinions.  Moreover,  the  accused  heretic  is  a  man  of 
good  life.  Let  his  cause,  therefore,  be  committed  to  a 
tribunal  of  impartial  and  learned  judges  to  be  appointed 
by  Charles  and  by  the  kings  of  England  and  Hungary. 
Erasmus  pressed  the  acceptance  of  this  plan  on  most  of 
the  emperor’s  agents,  on  Gattinara,  Adrian  of  Utrecht 
the  future  pope,  Villinger,  Albert  of  Mainz,  the  bishop 
of  Liege,  and  Conrad  Peutinger.1  His  efforts  were  not 
as  successful  as  he  could  have  desired.  Faber,  however, 
brought  up  a  similar  plan  again  at  the  Diet  of  Worms, 
though  without  result.2 

Another  important  ally  in  the  work  of  mediation  was 
Wolfgang  Capito,  now  in  the  service  of  Albert  of  Mainz. 
It  is  probably  due  to  his  influence  that  now  and 
later  Albert  stood  for  a  policy  of  reconciliation.3 

Erasmus  still  tried  to  remain  neutral.  To  Reuchlin  he 
wrote,  November  8th:4 

You  see  what  a  fatal  tragedy  is  now  acting,  the  catastrophe  of 
which  it  is  impossible  to  foresee.  ...  I  prefer  to  be  a  spectator 
rather  than  an  actor,  not  because  I  refuse  to  incur  the  risks  of  battle 
for  the  cause  of  Christ,  but  because  I  see  the  work  is  above  my 
mediocrity.  ...  I  always  try  to  separate  your  case  and  that  of 
learning  from  that  of  Luther. 

To  Justus  Jonas  at  Erfurt  he  wrote,  on  November  1  ith  :5 

Aleander,  a  man  sufficiently  skillful  in  the  three  tongues,  but 
apparently  made  for  this  tragedy,  is  here.  .  .  .  He  burned  Luther’s 
books  .  .  .  and  attacked  me  more  violently  than  that  man,  because 

1  Lond.  xxvii,  2  xiii,  30.  LB.  ep.  1195;  Paulus,  op.  cit.,  302;  Allen,  ep.  1156. 

a  Judicium  Fratris  Johannis  Fabri  in  causa  Lutheri.  Wrede:  Reichstags - 
akten  unter  Carl  V.y  ii,  484,  note  2. 

1  Capito  to  Luther,  December,  1521.  Enders,  iii,  259.  Cf.  P.  Kalkoff: 
JV.  Capito  im  Dienste  Albrechts  von  Mainz.  1907.  Also  cf.  Hedio’s  letter  to 
Zwingli,  Zzvinglis  Werkey  vii,  355. 

4  Allen,  ep.  1155. 

6  Kawerau:  Briefwechsel  des  Justus  Jonas ,  no.  41.  Allen,  ep.  1157.  Cf. 
Erasmus  to  Barland,  November  30,  1520,  Allen,  ep.  1163. 


THE  REFORMATION 


239 


he  and  his  party  believe  that  I  am  the  only  obstacle  to  the  immediate 
destruction  of  Luther,  although  for  many  causes  I  never  mix  in 
this  affair.  I  cherish  sound  learning;  I  cherish  the  gospel  truth; 
I  will  do  it  silently  if  I  may  not  do  it  openly. 

It  was  perhaps  after  hearing  of  some  such  expression 
as  this  that  the  Saxon  Reformer  wrote  a  friend  that, 
though  there  was  no  misunderstanding  between  himself 
and  Erasmus,  yet  he  often  discussed  with  Melanchthon 
the  question  of  how  far  the  humanist  was  from  the 
Gospel  truth.1 

After  three  weeks  at  Cologne  Erasmus  returned  to 
Louvain,  part  of  the  journey  being  in  the  company  of 
that  merry  princess,  Germaine  de  Foix,  widow  of 
Ferdinand  of  Aragon,  and  now  wife  of  the  Margrave 
John  of  Brandenburg.2  The  trip  was  made  difficult  by 
the  floods,  the  horses  being,  as  their  master  wittily 
phrased  it,  “almost  shipwrecked.”3 

Safe  at  home  again,  Erasmus  wrote  two  letters  on  the 
same  day,  December  7th,  which  are  a  striking  instance 
of  how  much  he  varied  his  tone  to  suit  different  corre¬ 
spondents.  To  the  Reformer  Capito,  he  wrote,  refer¬ 
ring  to  the  vigorous  Lutheran  agitation  in  the  Nether¬ 
lands:  “Our  Dutchmen  have  rejected  the  bull  of  the 
pontiff,  or  rather  of  Louvain.  The  theologians  think 
that  Luther  can  only  be  conquered  by  my  help  and 
tacitly  implore  it.  Far  be  this  madness  from  me!”4 

Feeling  obliged  to  cover  his  retreat  at  Rome,  however, 
he  put  the  case  differently,  on  the  very  same  day,  to 
Campeggio.5  After  pointing  out  the  odious  way  in  which 

‘To  Spengler,  November  17,  1520.  De  Wette:  Luthers  Briefe ,  i,  p.  525. 
L.  C.  ep.  337. 

2  Lond.  xviii,  37,  LB.  ep.  709.  “The  Queen  of  Aragon,”  Erasmus  calls  her. 
Diirer  saw  her  and  her  husband  about  this  time.  Durers  Schriftlicher  Nachlass 
(1908),  pp.  46,  1 16. 

8  Allen,  ep.  1169. 

4  Allen,  ep.  1165;  L.  C.  ep.  352.  Erasmus  calls  Exsurge  Dominey  “the  bull  of 
Louvain,”  because  most  of  the  errors  of  Luther  condemned  in  the  bull  had 
been  lifted  bodily  from  the  pronunciamento  of  the  Belgian  university. 

6  Allen,  ep.  1167;  L.  C.  ep.  351. 


240 


ERASMUS 


Luther  had  been  treated — unwarned,  untaught,  unre¬ 
futed,  only  attacked  and  persecuted — he  goes  on: 

I  am  not  so  impious  as  to  oppose  the  Roman  Church,  nor  so 
ungrateful  as  to  embarrass  Leo  .  .  .  but  yet  I  am  not  so  imprudent 
as  to  resist  one  [Luther]  whom  it  is  hardly  safe  for  kings  to  oppose. 
.  .  .  If  the  corrupt  morals  of  the  Roman  Church  need  a  great  and 
present  remedy,  certainly  it  is  not  for  men  like  me  to  take  so  much 
upon  themselves.  I  prefer  the  present  state  of  affairs  to  exciting  new 
tumults  which  turn  out  differently  from  what  one  supposes.  .  .  . 
Let  others  affect  the  martyr’s  crown,  I  do  not  think  myself  worthy  of 
this  dignity.  .  .  .  Many  grave  and  prudent  men  think  the  religious 
affair  would  have  a  happier  issue  if  it  were  treated  with  less  fury  and 
left  to  a  body  of  grave,  learned,  and  sedate  men. 

Such  intervention  did  little  good  at  Rome.  The  sixty 
days  given  Luther  to  recant  expired  on  November  28th. 
Instead  of  doing  so,  however,  the  bold  rebel  burned  the 
bull  and  the  whole  canon  law  on  December  10th.  The 
bull  of  excommunication  was  signed  at  Rome  on  January 
6,  1521,  though  not  promulgated  at  Worms  until  May 
6th. 

The  failure  of  Erasmus’s  plan  of  arbitration,  made 
evident  by  the  course  of  events  during  the  winter  of 
1520-21,  marks  a  turning-point  in  the  humanist’s  atti¬ 
tude  toward  the  Reformation.  Though  he  could  never 
have  been  called  a  follower  of  Luther,  he  had  hitherto 
labored  to  protect  him  from  unjust  persecution  and  to 
give  him  a  fair  hearing.  He  believed  that  if  the  Saxon 
would  only  be  moderate  he  might  accomplish  much  good, 
and,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  he  wrote  him  no  less  than  five 
personal  letters,  and  appealed  also  to  his  friends,  to  urge 
him  to  apply  himself  to  the  cause  of  reform  with  a  mind 
uncorrupted  by  hatred  or  violence.1 

But  Luther’s  Prelude  on  the  Babylonian  Captivity  of  the 
Churchy  an  attack  on  the  Catholic  sacramental  system, 
and  his  burning  of  the  canon  law  at  Wittenberg  on 
December  10th,  not  only  shocked  the  humanist,  but  con¬ 
vinced  him  that  Luther’s  cause  was  hopeless.  He  had 

1  All  but  one  of  these  letters  (that  quoted  above)  have  perished,  but  numer¬ 
ous  traces  of  the  correspondence  are  left.  Cf.  Allen,  ep.  1041,  and  iv,  339. 


THE  REFORMATION 


241 


tried  his  best,  he  protested,  to  devise  a  plan  by  which 
the  friar  might  win  the  glory  of  obedience,  and  the  pope 
that  of  clemency,  but  what  could  one  do  for  a  man  who 
acted  as  if  he  did  not  want  to  be  saved?1  His  position, 
as  he  would  have  it  understood,  was  perhaps  most  fully 
explained  in  two  letters  to  Nicholas  Everard,  President 
of  the  Estates  of  Holland,  of  which  the  first,  published 
four  hundred  years  after  he  wrote  it,  may  here  be  trans¬ 
lated  in  part:2 

With  what  odium  Luther  burdens  the  cause  of  learning  and  that 
of  Christianity!  As  far  as  he  can  he  involves  all  men  in  his  business. 
Everyone  confessed  that  the  Church  suffered  under  the  tyranny  of 
certain  men,  and  many  were  taking  counsel  to  remedy  this  state  of 
affairs.  Now  this  man  has  arisen  to  treat  the  matter  in  such  a  way 
that  he  fastens  the  yoke  on  us  more  firmly,  and  that  no  one  dares  to 
defend  even  what  he  has  said  well.  Six  months  ago  I  warned  him  to 
beware  of  hatred.  The  Babylonian  Captivity  has  alienated  many 
from  him,  and  he  daily  puts  forth  more  atrocious  things. 

Before  we  judge  Erasmus  for  using  too  strong  lan¬ 
guage  let  us  examine  what  the  Wittenberg  innovator  was 
actually  saying  at  this  time.  That  his  language  was 
sometimes  unbridled,  likely  to  arouse  fierce  passions  in 
the  multitude,  cannot  be  denied.  The  most  “ atrocious” 
thing  he  said,  and  one  that  has  been  quoted  against  him 
by  his  enemies  for  four  hundred  years,  was  the  following 
sentence  in  a  tract  published  in  July,  1 520 :3  “  If  we  punish 
thieves  with  the  gallows,  robbers  with  the  sword,  and 
heretics  with  fire,  why  should  we  not  rather  attack  with 
all  arms  these  masters  of  perdition,  these  cardinals,  these 
popes,  and  all  the  offscourings  of  the  Roman  Sodom,  who 
eternally  corrupt  the  Church  of  God,  and  why  should  we 
not  wash  our  hands  in  their  blood  ?”  Imagine  the  effect 


1  Allen,  ep.  1203. 

2  Allen,  epp.  1186,  1188.  February  25,  and  March,  1521. 

3  This  was  in  a  note,  or  appendix,  to  an  edition  of  Prierias’s  Epitoma 
Responsionis  ad  M.  Lutherum,  published  by  Luther  himself.  The  passage  is 
found  in  Luthers  Werke,  Weimar  ed.,  vi,  347;  Lutheri  Opera  latina  varii 
argument i,  Erlangen  ed.,  ii,  107.  The  latest  Catholic  treatment  of  it  by  H. 
Grisar  in  Historisches  Jarhbucht  Band  41,  pp.  247  ff,  1921. 


242 


ERASMUS 


of  this  fierce  harangue  on  the  sensitive  scholar,  and  then 
let  us  hear  his  own  sorrowful  confession  of  his  disappoint¬ 
ment  that  the  man  from  whom  he  had  hoped  a  real 
counter-agent  against  the  forces  of  evil  had  not  only 
doomed  himself  to  perish,  but  had  acted  so  as  to  make 
the  Pharisees  in  the  opposite  camp  all  the  stronger.  In 
the  letter  quoted  last  he  continues: 

Nor  do  I  see  on  what  Luther  is  relying,  unless  perhaps  on  the 
Bohemians.  I  fear  that  if  we  turn  from  the  Lutheran  Scylla  we  shall 
fall  into  Charybdis.  Some  men,  led  by  desire  for  revenge,  now 
accept  the  yoke  and  bridle  of  the  papal  bulls,  which  perchance  they 
will  later  wish  had  not  been  executed,  and  the  same  has  come  to 
pass  in  regard  to  the  Apologies.  And  Luther  acts  like  the  proverbial 
goat  who  jumps  into  a  ditch  without  looking  to  see  how  he  can  get 
out  again. 

So  in  other  letters  the  humanist  drives  home  the  point 
that  he  can  no  longer  support  a  man  who,  not  content 
with  courting  wilful  martyrdom,  would  bring  down  the 
cause  of  learning  in  his  own  ruin.1  With  the  Bohemian 
Brethren,  in  whom  he  saw  the  chief  support  of  the 
Reformer,  and  who  actively  applied  to  him  at  this  time 
for  approval,  he  also  expostulated.2 

But  the  gentle  scholar’s  dislike  of  the  rough  road  of 
revolution  was  not  due  entirely  to  considerations  of  the 
public  good.  He  felt  more  and  more  painfully  the  deli¬ 
cacy  of  his  own  situation,  for,  as  he  pointed  out  to  a 
powerful  gentleman  in  Holland — perhaps  the  imperial 
councilor  Maximilian  von  Zevenberghen — if  he  supported 
Luther  he  would  be  prosecuted,  if  he  opposed  him  he 
would  draw  on  himself  the  hatred  of  Germany.3  In  a 
mood  of  unusual  frankness  as  well  as  of  discourage¬ 
ment,  he  wrote  to  his  friend,  Richard  Pace,  a  letter  never 
published  until  the  eighteenth  century.  As  it  contains 

1  Allen,  ep.  1185. 

2  On  a  visit  of  two  Bohemian  Brethren  to  Erasmus  in  the  summer  of  1520 
see  Allen,  iv,  291  f.  His  letter  to  the  Hussite  Captain  of  Moravia,  Artlebus 
de  Boskowitz,  January  28,  1521,  Allen,  ep.  1183;  L.  C.  ep.  385. 

3  Allen,  ep.  n 66;  L.  C.,  ep.  346.  Kalkoff  suggests  that  the  addressee  may 
have  been  originally  Maximilian  of  Zevenberghen,  sometimes  called  Tran- 
sylvanus,  Anfdnge  der  Gegenrejormation  in  den  Niederlandent  i,  p.  105,  note  23. 


THE  REFORMATION 


243 


the  most  damaging  admissions  he  ever  made  about  his 
attitude  toward  the  Reformation,  some  part  of  it  must 
here  be  transcribed:1 

Would  that  some  deus  ex  ntachina  might  make  a  happy  ending  for 
this  drama  so  inauspiciously  begun  by  Luther!  He  himself  gives  his 
enemies  the  dart  by  which  they  transfix  him,  and  acts  as  if  he  did 
not  wish  to  be  saved,  though  frequently  warned  by  me  and  by  his 
friends  to  tone  down  the  sharpness  of  his  style.  ...  I  cannot 
sufficiently  wonder  at  the  spirit  in  which  he  has  written.  Certainly 
he  has  loaded  the  cultivators  of  literature  with  heavy  odium.  Many 
of  his  teachings  and  admonitions  were  splendid,  but  would  that  he 
had  not  vitiated  these  good  things  by  mixing  intolerable  evils!  If  he 
had  written  all  things  piously,  yet  I  should  not  have  courage  to  risk 
my  life  for  the  truth.  All  men  have  not  strength  for  martyrdom.  I 
fear  lest,  if  any  tumult  should  arise,  I  should  imitate  Peter  [in  denying 
the  Lord].  I  follow  the  just  decrees  of  popes  and  emperors  because 
it  is  right;  I  endure  their  evil  laws  because  it  is  safe.  I  think  this  is 
allowable  to  good  men,  if  they  have  no  hope  of  successful  resistance. 
.  .  .  Christ,  whose  cause  my  little  writings  have  ever  served,  will 
look  after  me.  After  Luther  has  been  burned  to  ashes,  and  when  some 
not  too  sincere  inquisitors  and  theologians  shall  take  glory  to  them¬ 
selves  for  having  burned  him,  good  princes  should  take  care  not  to 
allow  these  gentlemen  to  rage  against  the  innocent  and  meritorious, 
and  let  us  not  be  so  carried  awTay  with  hatred  for  Luther’s  bad  writings 
that  we  lose  the  fruit  of  his  good  ones. 

But,  though  this  is  the  frankest  confession  of  his  own 
weakness  ever  made  by  Erasmus,  it  is  not  really  so  dam¬ 
aging  to  his  character  as  are  the  endless  apologies  of  his 
later  life.  A  man  who  spent  such  a  world  of  effort,  un¬ 
relaxed  for  eighteen  years,  to  explain  and  justify  his 
action,  can  hardly  have  been  very  easy  about  it  in  his 
mind.  Must  we  then  cast  into  the  vestibule  of  hell,  with 
the  angels  who  neither  rebelled  with  Lucifer  nor  fought 
for  God,  but  remained  neutral  and  “for  themselves/’2  the 
man  whose  character,  judged  on  other  grounds,  seems 
so  fine,  and  whose  services  to  the  world  were  so  distin- 

1  Allen,  ep.  1218;  July  5,  1521. 

2  quel  cattivo  coro 

Degli  angeli  che  non  furon  rebelli, 

Ne  fur  fedeli  a  Dio,  ma  per  se  foro. 

Dante,  Inferno ,  iii,  37  ff.  The  very  words  remind  one  of  the  descrip  > 
tion  in  the  Epistola  Obscurorum  Virorum,  “Erasmus  esthomo  pro  9e.” 


244 


ERASMUS 


guished?  Some  opinion  we  must  have,  and  this  opinion 
will  doubtless  depend  primarily  on  our  conception  of  the 
rightness  or  wrongness  of  the  humanist’s  treatment  of 
the  Reformation.  A  purely  colorless  narrative  is  vir¬ 
tually  impossible,  for  the  sources  cannot  be  left  “to  speak 
for  themselves”;  the  witness  of  each  document  must  be 
cross-examined  in  the  light  of  the  whole  history  of  the 
epoch,  nay,  of  the  whole  of  the  historian’s  philosophy. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer,  Erasmus’s  atti¬ 
tude  toward  the  Reformation  was  wrong,  because  the 
present  writer  thinks  that  the  Reformation  was  justified 
in  its  purpose  and  on  the  whole  good  in  its  results.  With 
all  his  faults  and  all  his  sins,  Luther  acted  a  nobler,  more 
heroic,  and  also  a  historically  more  justifiable  part  than 
did  Erasmus.  Not  only  wTas  he  braver,  but  he  was  ulti¬ 
mately  more  right  in  his  judgment  of  the  requirements 
of  the  time  and  of  the  remedies  suitable  for  restoring 
health  and  vitality  to  suffering  Christendom. 

But,  having  given  the  value-judgment  that  is  unavoid¬ 
able  if  history  is  to  mean  more  than  an  idle  tale,  it  is 
only  just  to  add  that,  relatively,  there  is  much  to  be  said 
for  Erasmus’s  view  of  the  Reformation.  At  his  age,  in 
his  position,  with  his  interests,  it  is  rather  surprising 
that  he  should  have  been  so  open-minded  as  he  showed 
himself,  than  that  he  should  finally  have  turned  aside 
from  revolution.  He  saw,  as  we  should  be  inexcusable 
not  to  see  still  more  clearly,  that  in  human  parties  all 
the  good  is  never  on  one  side;  nor  all  the  evil  on  the 
other.  He  had  the  rare,  and,  for  its  possessor’s  peace 
of  mind,  unlucky  gift  of  seeing  the  weakness  of  his  own 
side  and  the  strength  of  his  enemy.  There  was  war  in 
his  own  heart  not  between  God  and  the  devil,  but  be¬ 
tween  hosts  of  ideas,  interests,  and  affections,  of  which 
some  good  and  some  evil  ones  seemed  to  fight  on  either 
side.  What  weighed  with  him  most  was  his  belief  that 
he  was  finally  consistent  in  championing  the  two  causes 
of  undogmatic  piety  and  of  sound  culture.  The 
two  least  creditable  springs  for  his  action — cowardice 


THE  REFORMATION 


245 


and  fear  of  losing  his  own  leadership — were  the  two 
which  had  the  least  weight  with  him.  Men’s  mo¬ 
tives  are  often  mixed,  and  with  so  complex  a  mind 
as  that  with  which  we  are  now  dealing,  this  mixture  is 
unusually  intricate.  To  dissect  that  delicate  tissue  of 
nerves  and  brain,  lancet  and  lens  are  needed.  After 
splendid  successes,  to  be  matched  with  an  issue  too  large 
for  any  save  the  greatest  to  master,  to  be  cast  at  the  age 
of  fifty  into  a  mighty  revolution,  to  run  into  a  terrific 
storm  after  a  smooth  voyage — in  short,  to  be  confronted 
with  an  opportunity  and  a  peril  almost  unequalled  in 
history — was  the  misfortune  of  the  man.  Even  the  best 
qualities  of  his  mind,  his  tolerance,  his  pacifism,  his 
ability  to  see  both  sides  of  every  question,  stood  him  in 
ill  stead  now.  If  he  was  wrong  in  his  judgment  of  the 
supreme  issue,  he  was  right  in  his  criticism  of  many 
details.  Luther  gave  only  too  many  handles  to  his 
enemies;  all  that  was  violent  and  coarse  and  crude  in 
the  man  and  still  more  in  some  of  his  followers,  repelled 
the  fastidious  scholar,  and  kept  him  from  the  Protestant 
camp  more  effectually  than  did  any  fear  for  his  own  skin 
or  his  own  laurels. 

Hn  January,  1 521, Charles  opened  his  first  Diet,  atWorms. 
Before  that  august  body  came  many  important  questions, 
political,  constitutional,  financial,  and  foreign.  But  the 
supreme  interest  of  contemporaries,  as  of  posterity,  has 
been  concentrated  on  the  Diet’s  dealing  with  Luther.  Ale- 
ander  proposed  that  he  be  condemned  unheard,  but  the 
estates,  after  a  stormy  session,  decided  to  summon  him. 
He  appeared  before  them  on  April  17th,  and  again  on 
April  1 8th,  refusing  to  retract  aught  of  his  doctrine. 

Erasmus,  invited  to  be  present,  declined,  partly,  as  he 
explained,  because  he  did  not  want  to  meddle  with  the 
religious  question,  partly  because  the  plague  had  broken 
out  in  the  crowded  town.1  Hoping,  however,  to  exercise 
his  influence  in  favor  of  moderation,  he  wrote  to  powerful 

xTo  Laurinus,  February  1,  1523;  Lond.  xxiii,  6,  col.  1213;  LB.  ep.  650, 
col.  749. 


ERASMUS 


246 

men,  among  whom  he  mentions  the  Burgundian  Chan¬ 
cellor  Mercurino  Gattinara,  Cardinal  Matthew  Schinner, 
Aloysius  Marlian,  Bishop  of  Tuy,  and  an  adviser  of 
Chievres,  the  Stadholder  of  the  Netherlands.  Marlian 
composed  an  oration  against  Luther,  the  temperate  tone 
of  which  may  have  been  due  to  Erasmus’s  advice.  But 
as  both  he  and  Chievres  died  of  the  plague  at  Worms 
nothing  came  of  this  effort.1  Gattinara  answered 
Erasmus’s  advances  in  a  letter,  reassuring  him  as  to  his 
own  personal  safety,  but  promising  nothing  for  Luther.2 

True  to  his  expressed  preference  for  “being  a  spectator 
rather  than  an  actor  of  a  drama,”3  Erasmus  spent  the 
winter  of  1520-21,  while  the  earth  trembled  with  the 
storm  at  Worms,  in  safety  at  Louvain  and  at  Antwerp. 
One  day,  at  the  house  of  Peter  Gilles,  he  dined  with 
Albert  Diirer,  the  celebrated  Nuremberg  painter,  now  on 
a  trip  to  the  Low  Countries.4  It  was  perhaps  on  this 
occasion  that  Diirer  heard  him  say  that  he  gave  himself 
two  more  years  in  which  to  dare  to  do  something.6  The 
artist  was  in  warm  sympathy  with  the  Reformation,  as 
were  other  friends  of  the  humanist.  The  local  head  of 
the  movement,  which  almost  reached  the  proportions  of 
a  revolt,  was  the  Augustinian  Prior  James  Probst,  whom 
Erasmus  called  “a  pure  Christian  who  almost  alone 
preaches  Christ,”6  and  whom  Aleander  dubbed  one  of 
the  men  most  dangerous  to  the  Roman  Church.7  An¬ 
other  leader  in  the  revolt  from  Rome  was  the  humanist’s 
warm  friend,  Cornelius  Grapheus.8 

1  On  Marlian,  who  died  on  the  night  of  May  ion,  1521,  L.  C.,  i,  421,  note; 
on  William  de  Croy,  Seigneur  de  Chievres,  ibid.,  ep.  341. 

2  Dated  Worms,  April  5,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1197. 

3  LB.  iii,  871  D. 

4  E.  Heidrich:  Albrecht  Diirer s  Schriftlicher  Nachlass,  1908,  p.  82. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  100. 

6  Allen,  ep.  980;  L.  C.  ep.  155.  May  30,  1519. 

7  Aleander  to  Cardinal  de’  Medici,  October  13,  1520.  Brieger:  Aleander 
und  Luther,  1886,  p.  271.  P.  Kalkoff:  Anfange  der  Gegenreformation  in  den 
Niederlanden,  1903,  i,  51  f.  Diirer,  pp.  77,  107.  On  Probst  further,  Allen, 
ep.  980,  line  54,  note;  Marcel  Godet:  La  Congregation  de  Montaigu,  1912,  p. 
189;  O.  Clemen:  Beitrage  zur  Reformations geschichte,  i,  37  ff;  Enders,  vii,  92. 

8  Diirer,  p.  iii. 


HL1 

1 

1 

A 

2?  ^ 

1  —  ,  “■ 

ANTWERP  IN  1520 

From  a  sketch  by  Albert  Dtirer.  Original  in  the  Albertina,  Vienna 


THE  REFORMATION 


247 


Erasmus  probably  took  little  part  in  this  agitation. 
He  was  daily  becoming  more  irritated  against  a  man  who 
“ acted  as  if  he  wished  to  perish.”  On  May  10th  he 
wrote  a  long  letter  to  Jonas,1  explaining  that  Luther, 
who  at  first  had  his  favor,  had  gradually  alienated  good 
men  by  his  passion,  by  his  railing  against  the  pope, 
against  the  friars,  against  the  universities,  and  against 
Aristotle’s  philosophy.  Luther,  he  says,  would  have 
done  better  to  have  thrown  himself  on  the  mercy  of 
pope  and  emperor.  Though  there  is  some  slight  resem¬ 
blance  between  the  words  used  by  the  Wittenberg  pro¬ 
fessor  and  those  used  by  Erasmus,  the  latter  explains 
that  there  is  a  world  of  difference  in  their  meaning  and 
tone.  His  own  ideal  of  a  reform  and  of  reformers  was 
further  set  forth,  for  the  benefit  of  the  same  correspon¬ 
dent,  in  a  long  epistle  containing  the  lives  of  Vitrier  and 
Colet.2 

On  April  26th  Luther  left  Worms.  While  returning 
home,  on  the  afternoon  of  May  4th,  he  was  seized  with 
friendly  violence  by  retainers  of  the  Elector  Frederic, 
and  borne  away  to  the  Wartburg,  a  fine  castle  near 
Eisenach,  to  hide  from  the  ban  until  the  storm  should 
blow  over.  Wild  rumors  of  his  assassination,  as  well  as  of 
his  flight  to  Bohemia  or  to  Sickingen,  flew  through  Ger¬ 
many.  On  May  17th  the  news  reached  Antwerp,  where 
Durer  heard  it  and  recorded  in  his  diary  a  long  lamen¬ 
tation  for  the  untimely  end  of  the  “  inspired  man  of 
God.”  “O  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,”  he  continues, 
“where  wilt  thou  abide?  O  thou  Knight  of  Christ,  seize 
the  martyr’s  crown.”3  But  this  was  an  honor  for  which 
the  gentle  scholar  had  no  ambition,  at  least  in  this  cause. 
“I  should  wish  to  be  a  martyr  for  Christ,”  he  said,  “had 
I  the  strength;  but  not  for  Luther.”4  To  Richard  Pace 

1  Allen,  ep.  1202;  L.  C.  ep.  477;  G.  Kawerau:  Briefwcchsel  des  Justus 
Jonas ,  no.  50. 

2  Allen,  ep.  1211. 

3  Durers  Schriftlicher  Nachlass,  pp.  95  ff.  Erasmus  speaks  of  the  rumor  of 
Luther’s  assassination  on  July  5th.  Allen,  ep.  1221. 

4  LB.  x,  66 3.  “Spongia,”  1523. 


ERASMUS 


248 

he  wrote  on  July  5th,1  saying  that  the  Germans  wish  to 
drag  him  into  the  affair,  but  that  their  foolish  plan  is 
more  likely  to  alienate  him.  What  help  could  he  give 
the  bold  innovator  if  he  tried  to  share  his  danger,  save 
that  two  would  perish  instead  of  one? 

Erasmus  had  indeed  some  cause  to  be  anxious.  On 
May  6th  Aleander  published  the  bull  Decet  Pontificem 
Romanian,  placing  Luther  under  the  ban  of  the  Church. 
On  May  26th  the  emperor  signed  the  Edict  of  Worms, 
putting  him  under  the  ban  of  the  Empire,  commanding 
his  books  to  be  burned  and  his  person  to  be  delivered 
up  to  the  authorities.  Shortly  afterward  Charles  and 
Aleander  returned  to  the  Netherlands,  where  they  pro¬ 
ceeded  at  once  to  carry  out  their  program  of  stamping 
out  heresy.  In  the  autumn  Probst  and  Grapheus  were 
arrested  at  Antwerp,2  and  it  was  perhaps  the  fear  of  the 
inquisitor  that  sent  Diirer  back  to  Nuremberg.3 

Finding  Antwerp  too  hot  to  hold  him,  Erasmus  retired 
to  Anderlecht,  a  small  town  near  Brussels,  where  he  spent 
most  of  the  summer  and  early  autumn.  On  his  occa¬ 
sional  visits  to  the  capital  he  was  well  received  by  dis¬ 
tinguished  men.  Among  others  he  saw  the  king  of  Den¬ 
mark,  Christian  II,  now  on  a  visit  to  his  brother-in-law, 
the  emperor,  in  order  to  collect  his  wife’s  dowry.  The 
king  was  decidedly  favorable  to  Luther,  and  answered 
the  humanist’s  objections  to  the  violent  course  things 
were  taking  by  asserting  that  efficacious  medicines  al¬ 
ways  put  the  whole  body  into  convulsions  before  they 
could  cure.4  For  his  own  part,  Erasmus  feared  that, 


1  Allen,  ep.  1281. 

2Kalkoff:  Anfange ,  pp.  61-70. 

3  Kalkoff,  ibid.,  and  on  Diirer  on  Repertorium  fur  Kunstwissenschaft ,  xx, 
1897.  Diirer  himself  only  says  that  he  had  declined  the  offer  of  a  house  and 
pension  from  the  city  of  Antwerp.  Schriftlicher  Nachlass,  p.  178.  Before  he 
left  he  intrusted  his  possessions  to  Luther’s  warm  friend,  Wencelaus  Link, 
ibid,  p.  1 14. 

4  LB.  ep.  509,  650;  Lond.  ep.  xxiii,  6,  col.  1214.  Both  1523.  Diirer  men¬ 
tions  a  banquet  given  by  the  king  to  the  emperor  on  July  2d,  and  one  given 
by  Charles  to  Christian  on  July  4th.  Schriftlicher  Nachlass,  pp.  114  f.  It 
was  perhaps  here  that  Erasmus  met  him. 


THE  REFORMATION 


249 


though  a  powerful  drug  might  be  necessary  to  restore  the 
collapsed  morals  of  the  Church,  yet  that  this  medicine, 
applied  without  sufficient  skill,  would  rather  exacerbate 
than  expel  the  disease.  The  Apple  of  Discord  had  been 
thrown  into  the  world,  no  part  of  which  was  now  at  peace. 

The  parting  of  the  ways  had  now  come;  one  must  be 
either  with  the  Reform  or  against  it.  Erasmus’s  con¬ 
tinued  efforts  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  both  sides  only 
brought  him  the  ill  will  of  both.  As  Zasius,  the  juris¬ 
consult  of  Freiburg  and  a  friend  of  the  humanist,  wrote 
to  Boniface  Amerbach,  Erasmus’s  letters  on  Luther 
caused  him  to  be  ill  spoken  of  even  by  the  most  devoted 
Erasmians.1  For  his  own  part,  Zasius  protests,  he 
esteemed  the  prudent  and  holy  writings  of  Erasmus  all 
the  more  by  contrast  with  the  insane  ravings  of  Luther.2 

In  order  to  disabuse  the  public  of  the  idea  that  he  had 
any  part  or  lot  with  Luther,  while  at  the  same  time  put¬ 
ting  in  a  word  wherever  possible  in  favor  of  moderation, 
Erasmus  continued  throughout  the  summer  to  write  to 
powerful  friends.  To  Peter  Barbier  he  confessed  that 
“he  so  hated  discord  that  even  truth,  if  seditious,  would 
displease  him,  and  that  he  had  not  written  against  Luther 
only  because  he  had  not  had  time  to  study  the  question 
thoroughly,  and  that  to  write  against  a  man  should  be 
something  more  than  to  call  him  names.3  To  Warham, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  he  protested  that  he  would 
write  something  for  the  peace  of  the  Church  when  he 
had  time.4 

To  his  enemies  at  Louvain  he  designed  to  send  the 
most  elaborate  apology  of  all.5  At  the  same  time,  urged 
on  by  many  men  in  power,  he  began  a  dialogue  On  Ending 
the  Lutheran  Affair,  which,  however,  was  soon  interrupted 
by  ill  health,  as  he  says,  or,  more  probably,  by  prudence.6 

1  July  I5»  1521.  Udalrici  Zasii  epistola,  ed.  J.  A.  Riegger,  1774,  i,  47. 

2  To  Amerbach,  August  20,  1521,  ibid,  p.  49. 

3  Louvain,  August  13,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1225. 

4  Bruges,  August  23,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1228. 

6  Anderlecht,  1521;  Allen,  ep.  1217. 

6  To  Glapion,  Basle,  1522,  Lond.  xix,  10;  LB.  ep.  645. 


250 


ERASMUS 


The  scheme  of  the  book,  related  elsewhere,  was  to  con¬ 
sist  of  three  conversations  between  Thrasymachus,  repre¬ 
senting  Luther,  Eubulus  the  Catholic,  and  Philalethes  the 
arbiter — i.e.,  Erasmus  himself.  The  first  conversation  was 
to  consider  Luther’s  manner,  which  was  designated  as  ob¬ 
jectionable  even  if  all  he  said  were  true;  the  second  was 
planned  to  discuss  some  of  his  doctrines,  and  the  third  de¬ 
signed  to  show  the  path  toward  peace.1  He  even  wrote 
to  Bombasius2  at  Rome,  asking  him  to  get  permission  from 
the  pope  to  read  Luther’s  works;  this  Aleander  had  refused. 

All  the  while  Erasmus  was  keenly  sensible  of  his  dan¬ 
ger.  Among  the  men  he  feared  most  was  John  Glapion, 
a  Franciscan  of  Bruges  recently  appointed  confessor  to 
the  emperor.  Whether,  as  Hutten  charged,3  Glapion’s  at¬ 
tempt  to  mediate  at  the  Diet  of  Worms  was  due  to  the 
influence  of  Erasmus,  cannot  certainly  be  told,  but  soon 
after  that  he  entered  into  communication  with  the 
humanist  with  the  purpose  of  making  him  arbiter  of  the 
whole  cause.  “  I  know  that  he  acted  with  friendly  mind,” 
wrote  Erasmus  much  later,  “but  others  tried  to  force  the 
plan  upon  me  because  they  suspected  me,  though  un¬ 
justly.  They  wished  either  to  make  me  the  hangman  of 
those  whom  they  thought  I  favored,  or  else  to  make  me 
betray  myself  into  their  nets.”4  The  plan,  however,  such 
as  it  was,  fell  through.  Glapion  tried  hard  to  get  an 
interview  during  the  summer,  but  failed.  Erasmus  says 
that  he  was  so  willing  to  meet  him  that  he  actually 
started  to  return  to  the  Netherlands  after  he  had  gone 


1  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations ,  1523.  Allen,  i.  p.  34  f. 

2  September  23,  1521,  Allen,  ep.  1236. 

3  LB.  x,  1647;  “Spongia,”  1523.  At  Worms  Glapion  had  met  Hutten, 
Bucer,  and  Spalatin,  and  had  tried  to  prevent  Luther’s  coming  to  the  city 
by  proposing  that  all  should  be  smoothed  over  if  Luther  would  only  retract  a 
few  articles.  On  this  see  L.  C.  epp.  407,  440,  444,  445;  P.  Kalkoff:  Aleander 
gegen  Luther ,  p.  156;  P.  Smith:  Life  and  Letters  of  Martin  Luther ,  pp.  1 1  f; 
Kostlin-Kawerau:  Luthers  Lebeny  1903.  i,  388,  408;  Forstemann:  Neues 
Urkundenbuch,  pp.  36-54. 

4  To  Olaus,  April  19,  1533.  Forstemann  und  Gunther:  Briefe  an  Erasmus , 
1904,  p.  348.  The  same,  dated  February  19,  1533,  in  Olah  Miklos  Levelezese; 
kozli  Ipolyi  Arnold.  Monumenta  Hungarice  diploniatica ,  xxv,  1875,  p.  351. 


THE  REFORMATION 


251 


to  Basle,  in  order  to  see  the  confessor  at  Calais,  but  that 
ill  health  forced  him  to  return  after  he  had  reached 
Schlettstadt.1  He  continued  to  write2  to  him  until 
Glapion’s  death,  in  September,  1522,  cut  short 
further  intercourse.  Before  this  happened,  however, 
Erasmus  had  already  begun  to  feel  terribly  uneasy  at 
the  course  things  were  taking.  ‘‘  Before  Caesar  left  for 
Spain,”  he  wrote  much  later,  “I  felt  that  there  was  a 
movement  on  foot  to  put  me  at  the  head  of  the  growing 
Lutheran  party;  and  I  confess  that  I  left  that  province 
[Brabant]  because  I  dared  not  trust  Glapion,  although 
he  vrrote  often  and  courteously.”3  At  the  same  time  he 
told  Zwingli  that  he  was  obliged  to  leave  so  as  not  to 
get  involved  with  the  Pharisees.4 

To  Glapion  himself  he  wrote  that  he  would  have  pre¬ 
ferred  to  have  remained  at  Anderlecht  had  the  emperor 
been  able  to  protect  him  against  those  who,  under  pre¬ 
text  of  religion,  went  about  to  avenge  their  own  slights.5 
Among  these  by  far  the  most  dangerous  was  Aleander, 
now  raging  around  the  Netherlands,  privately  denounc¬ 
ing  Erasmus,  in  dispatches  to  Rome,  as  a  worse  heretic 
than  Luther,6  and  as  the  agitator  arousing  all  Germany 
to  rebellion  and  spreading  the  idea  that  the  bull  Exsurge 
was  forged.7  Aleander  knew  and  disliked  the  Advice  of 
One  Seeking  the  Peace  of  the  Church;8  and  he  insinuated, 
on  the  ground  of  a  slight  stylistic  resemblance,  that  the 
humanist  was  the  author  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity .9 


1  To  P.  Barbier  (1522),  Lond.  xx,  40;  LB.  ep.  644. 

2  To  Glapion,  Basle,  1522,  Lond.  xix,  no;  LB.  ep.  645. 

3  Erasmus  to  Maldonato,  March  30,  1527.  Zeitschrift  fur  historische 
Theologie,  xxix,  1859,  p.  610. 

4  August  31,  1523,  Zwinglii  Opera ,  ed.  Egli  etc.,  viii,  115. 

5  To  Glapion,  Lond.  xix,  no;  LB.  ep.  645. 

6  P.  Kalkoff:  Aleander  gegen  Luther,  pp.  59,  74;  letters  of  December  18, 
1520,  and  of  February  6,  1521. 

7  J.  Paquier:  Lettres  familieres  de  Jerome  Aleandre,  1910,  p.  61;  Aleander  to 
Cardinal  Pucci,  October  24,  1520. 

8  Kalkoff:  Aleander,  p.  80. 

9  Erasmus  to  Bombasius,  September  23,  1521;  Allen,  ep.  1236.  The 
Babylonian  Captivity  began  with  the  words  “Velim  nolim,”  and  Erasmus’s 
Panegyric  of  Philip  with  the  words  “Velis  nolis.” 


252 


ERASMUS 


This  charge  almost  drove  Erasmus  wild,  as  did  the  re¬ 
ports  he  heard  of  Aleander’s  savage  defamation  of  him 
to  the  emperor  and  others  in  power,1  especially  the 
Bishop  of  Liege.  The  tricky  Italian,  however,  judged  it 
expedient  to  keep  all  this  enmity  as  secret  as  possible, 
and  even  complained,  with  crocodile  tears,  to  friends  of 
the  humanist,2  that,  in  spite  of  the  wrongs  he  had  suf¬ 
fered  at  his  hands,  he  could  not  forget  his  ancient  love 
for  the  scholar. 

With  far  more  reason  Erasmus  also  felt  compelled  to 
dissemble  his  fear  and  hatred  of  the  legate.  Though  he 
knew  him  to  be  proud,  fierce,  irritable,  insatiate  of  glory, 
and  bent  upon  his  ruin,3  he  spoke  to  Capito  of  this  man 
in  a  friendly  way,  in  order  that  Capito  might  use  his 
good  offices  with  the  legate.4  In  order  to  forestall  him 
Erasmus  wrote  to  powerful  friends  at  Rome  and  received 
a  gracious  reply  from  Leo,  dated  January  15,  1521, 
expressing  pleasure  in  the  humanist’s  assurances  of  loy¬ 
alty,  which  the  pope  had  begun  to  doubt,  not  so  much 
by  reason  of  the  reports  of  others,  as  because  of  certain 
of  his  own  writings.5  At  the  same  time  strict  instruc¬ 
tions  were  sent  by  Cardinal  de’  Medici  to  Aleander  to 
treat  the  humanist  with  the  utmost  consideration.6 

Distrusting  these  professions,  however,  and  even  hear¬ 
ing  a  report,  probably  false,  that  a  reward  had  been 
offered  to  anyone  who  would  capture  him  and  send  him 
bound  to  Rome,7  he  prepared  to  leave  the  Netherlands. 
While  spending  some  days  at  Louvain  in  order  to  pack, 


1  Erasmus  to  Aleander,  September  2, 1524;  LB.  ep.  693. 

J  Vives  to  Erasmus,  Louvain,  January  19,  1522.  LB.  ep.  615.  Vivis  Opera, 
1782,  vii,  159. 

3  So  Erasmus  wrote  Pirckheimer,  March  30,  1522,  LB.  ep.  618. 

4  Capito  to  Aleander,  March  29,  1521;  P.  Kalkoff:  Capito  im  Dienste 
Albrechts  von  Mainz ,  1908,  p.  135. 

5  Lammer:  Monumenta  Vaticana ,  1861,  p.  3;  Jortin:  Life  of  Erasmus,  ii, 
398.  Allen,  ep.  1180. 

6  Balan:  Monumenta  Reformations  Lutherans,  no.  53,  pp.  129  f;  Pastor- 
Kerr,  viii,  257. 

7  Boniface  Amerbach  to  Alciat,  1521;  Burckhardt-Biedermann:  Bon. 
Amerbach  und  die  Reformation ,  pp.  20,  150. 


THE  REFORMATION 


253 


he  met  Aleander,  on  Sunday,  October  26,  1521,  at  the 
Inn  of  the  Wild  Man  and  had  a  long  conversation  in 
which  mortal  hatred  on  both  sides  was  masked  under  a 
show  of  courtesy  and  even  of  old  friendship.1  Indeed, 
while  more  than  one  evening  was  thus  spent  in  appar¬ 
ently  amicable  chat,  many  subjects  of  discourse  were 
brought  up,  the  pleasantest  of  which  was  the  news,  com¬ 
municated  by  the  legate,  that  Pirckheimer,  recently 
smitten  by  the  ban  of  excommunication,  had  submitted 
and  had  been  absolved  by  special  breve  of  the  pope.2 
After  this  smooth  introduction  the  talk  soon  fell  uocn 

jk. 

rapids  and  whirlpools,  when  the  subject  of  Erasmus’s 
own  position  was  broached.  Aleander  not  only  pointed 
out  objectionable  passages  in  the  humanist’s  acknowl¬ 
edged  writings,  and  demanded  recantation,  but  accused 
him  of  writing  several  anonymous  pamphlets — as,  of 
course,  he  had  done — and  thus  threw  him  into  “mortal 
confusion.”3  Contemporary  gossip  reported4  that  when 
the  nuncio  offered  the  humanist  a  fat  bishopric  if  he 
would  write  against  the  heretic,  he  had  replied: 
“Luther  is  too  great  for  me  to  write  against.  ...  I 
learn  more  from  reading  one  page  of  his  books  than  from 
the  whole  of  Aquinas.”  The  cautious  Dutchman  would 
certainly  never  have  expressed  himself  thus  bluntly  be¬ 
fore  a  wily  opponent,  but  the  report  that  he  admired 
Luther’s  exegesis  was  very  persistent,5 6  and  the  offer  of 


1  To  Laurinus,  Lond.  xxiii,  5,  col.  1214;  LB.  ep.  650;  Paquier:  Humanisme 
et  Reforme,  pp.  280  ff.  Allen,  iv,  591. 

2  November  29,  1521,  Erasmus  to  Pirckheimer.  Allen,  ep.  1244.  To 
Pirckheimer,  January  26,  1521,  Allen,  ep.  1282. 

3  Aleander  to  Sanga,  Brussels,  December  30,  1531,  in  Lammer:  Monumenta 
Vaticana,  1861,  p.  93;  cf.  Pastor-Antrobus,  v,  423. 

4  “Narratio  per  Henricum  Priorem  Gundensem,”  Lutheri  Opera  latina  varii 

argumenti  (Erlangen),  v,  249.  This  was  attributed  to  (Ecolampadius,  see 
(Ecolampadii  judicium  de  M.  Luthero,  sine  loco  et  anno  (British  Museum); 
Hiibmaier  sent  this  to  Beatus  Rhenanus,  in  an  undated  letter  published  in 
Briefioechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus,  no.  192.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  the 
name  Henricus  Prior  Gundensis  concealed  a  double  authorship,  referring  to 
Henry  of  Ziitphen  and  Melchior  Miritzsch,  Prior  of  the  Augustinian  convent 
at  Ghent.  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1920-21,  p.  289  f. 

6  Melanchthon,  in  Corpus  Reformatorum,  v.  74. 


254 


ERASMUS 


the  bishopric  is  intrinsically  probable  and  is  testified  by 
certain  expressions  of  his  own.  But  Aleander  did  not 
disdain  threats,  observing  that  the  pope,  who  often  de¬ 
stroyed  counts  and  dukes,  could  easily  destroy  some 
lousy  men  of  letters,  and  could  even  treat  the  emperor 
as  a  cobbler.1 

Notwithstanding  the  apparent  friendliness  of  the  legate 
Erasmus  continued  to  believe,  and  to  write  to  his  friends, 
that  the  latter  was  going  about  to  traduce  and  to  destroy 
him.2  He  was  also  much  alarmed  at  the  arrest  of  a 
heretic  at  Antwerp,  who,  on  being  examined  at  Brussels, 
implicated  him  in  aiding  and  abetting  the  illicit  sale  of 
Lutheran  books.3  He  therefore  decided  to  leave  at  once, 
and  put  himself  under  the  protection  of  Francis  von 
Sickingen,  now  captain  of  the  army  on  the  Meuse,  with 
whom  he  spent  his  birthday,  October  28th,  at  Brussels.4 
Under  his  powerful  shield,  he  made  his  way  up  the 
Rhine,  arriving  at  Basle  on  November  15th.5  Meeting 
Capito  at  Mainz,  he  learned  that  this  old  ally  had 
been  negotiating  with  Luther  in  hopes  of  patching  up  a 
truce  between  him  and  the  Church,  and  especially  be¬ 
tween  him  and  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  a  wily 
Hohenzollern  who  did  his  best  to  run  with  the  hare  and 
to  hunt  with  the  hounds  at  the  same  time.  As  Capito’s 
efforts  were  not  kindly  received  by  the  Reformer,  on 
October  14th  he  wrote  Erasmus  for  instructions.6  The 
Lutherans,  he  said,  were  both  curious  and  insolent, 
and  boasted  that  they  had  Erasmus’s  support.  The 

1  A.  Lauchert:  Die  Italienischen  liter arischen  Gegner  Luthers,  1912,  p.  299  f. 

2  Lond.  xx,  40;  LB.  ep.  644;  Erasmus  to  Choler,  1531,  Horawitz:  Eras- 
miana,  i,  no.  18,  and  a  letter  to  Wolsey  published  by  A.  Meyer:  Les  Relations 
a'Erasme  et  de  Luther,  1909,  p.  163. 

3  Vives  to  Erasmus,  April  1,  1522;  LB.  ep.  619;  Vivis  Opera,  vii,  164. 

4  Lond.  xxiii,  6,  and  xx,  40;  LB.  epp.  644,  650.  H.  Ulmann:  Franz  von 
Sickingen,  1872,  p.  226. 

5  Allen,  iv.,  598  IF;  Vadianische  Briefs ammlung,  ii,  no.  292. 

8  Capito  to  Erasmus,  October  14,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1241.  The  letter  is  un¬ 
fortunately  badly  mutilated.  As  it  was  first  published  by  Merula  in  1607 
from  a  MS.  now  lost,  there  is  little  hope  of  restoring  its  contents,  which  would 
certainly  be  most  interesting.  Cf.  L.C.  ii,  p.  56  n. 


THE  REFORMATION 


255 


humanist’s  answer  was  probably  given  in  the  interview 
at  Mainz,  early  in  November,  but  what  it  was  can  only 
be  inferred  from  the  sequel  and  from  his  growing  cold¬ 
ness  to  the  evangelical  cause. 

It  was  probably  this  very  effort  of  Capito  and  Erasmus 
to  induce  Luther  to  write  more  gently  that  finally  alien¬ 
ated  him  altogether.  When  he  left  Worms  for  the  Wart- 
burg  he  still  had  the  highest  hopes  of  the  great  humanist. 
In  a  letter  to  Spalatin  of  May  14th  he  referred  with  ap¬ 
proval  to  the  Consilium  cujusdam ,  which  he  attributed 
to  Erasmus.1  Again  in  the  preface  to  his  work  against 
Latomus  (June,  1521),  the  Louvain  professor  who  had 
previously  attacked  Erasmus,  Luther  refers  to  Latomus 
as  Ishbi-benob,  the  giant  Philistine  who  thought  to  slay 
David,  and  to  Erasmus  as  Abishai,  who  defended  the 
man  of  God,  “and,”  he  adds,  “this  Ishbi-benob  yields 
to  the  might  of  our  Abishai.”2 

The  next  reference,3  in  September,  shows  an  entire 
change  of  attitude,  and  hints  at  the  cause  of  it: 

The  judgment  of  neither  Capito  nor  Erasmus  moves  me  in  the 
least.  They  accomplish  nothing,  but  they  make  me  fear  that  I  shall 
sometime  have  trouble  with  one  or  the  other  of  them,  since  I  see  that 
Erasmus  is  far  from  the  knowledge  of  grace,  as  one  who  looks  not  at 
the  cross,  but  at  peace  in  all  his  writings.  For  this  reason  he  thinks 
that  all  can  be  accomplished  with  civility  and  benevolence,  but 
Behemoth4  does  not  care  for  such  treatment,  nor  does  he  amend 
himself  in  the  least  on  account  of  it. 

1  So  at  least  I  interpret  the  reference  to  “Erasmi  bule”  (fiovlij)  which 
puzzled  Enders,  though  Luther’s  reading  of  the  Consilium ,  “that  Erasmus  said 
the  people  would  no  longer  bear  the  yoke  of  the  pope,”  is  somewhat  strained. 
Enders,  iii,  153,  L.  C.  ep.  483. 

2  Rationis  Latomiancz  Confutatio.  Werke  (Weimar),  viii,  36,  and  De  Wette, 
ii,  18. 

8  Enders,  iii,  229.  L.  C.  ep.  506.  Cf.  Richter,  30-32.  There  is  an  undated 
letter  from  Capito  to  Luther  (Enders,  iii,  238)  exhorting  him  to  mildness,  put 
by  Enders  in  October.  I  should  be  inclined  to  put  it  in  September.  Capito 
was  at  Wittenberg  on  September  30th,  to  consult  with  Melanchthon  and 
Jonas  on  the  way  to  prevent  Luther  attacking  Albert  of  Mayence.  Archiv 
fur  Reformations gesch.,  vi,  172,  178  (1910).  Cf.  letter  of  Ulscenius  to  Capito, 
October  21st,  ibid.,  206. 

4  Job,  xi:i5.  Luther’s  favorite  expression  for  Satan,  following  Jerome. 


ERASMUS 


256 

The  breach  was  made  complete  by  the  publication  of 
the  Epistolcz  ad  diversos ,  in  November,  1521.  This  was 
intended  to  correct  the  indiscretions  of  the  last  collec¬ 
tion  of  letters  (the  Farrago  of  1519),  and  to  give  the 
impression  that  the  Dutch  scholar  stood  entirely  aloof 
from  the  combat.  None  of  the  letters  here  published 
are  favorable  to  the  Reformers,  and  many  protest  that 
the  writer  had  nothing  to  do  with  Wittenberg,  but  is 
still  a  true  son  of  Rome.  He  himself  feared1  that  it 
would  excite  the  hatred  of  the  Reformers,  and  he  was 
right.  Luther  saw  the  volume  a  few  months  after  it 
was  published  and  wrote  Spalatin:  “In  this  book  of 
letters  Erasmus  now  at  length  shows  that  he  is  the 
hearty  enemy  of  Luther  and  his  doctrine  though  with 
wily  words  he  pretends  to  be  a  friend.”2 

1  Lond.  xxi,  16.  LB.  ep.  624. 

*  Enders,  iii,  360. 


CHAPTER  X 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  I52I-29 
RELATIONS  WITH  FRANCE  AND  ENGLAND 


AFTER  his  return  to  Basle,  on  November  15,  1521, 
Erasmus  lived  for  ten  months  with  Froben,  paying 
150  gulden  for  his  board.1  He  was  sensitive  lest  it  be 
thought  that  he  lived  on  Froben’s  bounty,  a  rumor  which 
he  took  pains  to  deny,  though  acknowledging  the  con¬ 
stant  kindness  of  his  friend  the  publisher.2  In  Septem¬ 
ber,  1522,  he  took  up  his  residence  in  a  separate  house. 
His  life  was  so  little  private  that  he  said  of  it  that  the 
veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain  and  the  most  sacred 
secrets  of  the  confessional  published  abroad.3  At  this 
time  he  speaks  of  his  annual  income  as  a  little  more  than 
four  hundred  gulden,4  which,  by  the  way,  was  equal  to 
the  salary  of  a  professor  at  the  leading  German  and 
English  universities. 

As  there  was  no  general  copyright,  he  received  com¬ 
paratively  little  for  his  manuscripts,  which  to-day  would 
have  made  him  a  rich  man.  Nevertheless,  an'  author’s 
good  will  was  worth  something  to  the  publisher,  and  the 
humanist  showed  himself  a  good  business  man  in  exploit¬ 
ing  this.  Doubtless  one  chief  reason  for  the  noticeable 
fact  that  every  new  edition  of  each  work  differed  some¬ 
what  from  the  last  was  to  give  the  publisher  and  author 
the  benefit  to  be  derived  from  the  desire  of  readers  for 


1  December  16,  1524.  Lond.  xx,  24.  LB.  ep.  719.  A  gulden  was  intrinsi¬ 
cally  worth  fifty-six  cents.  Erasmus  therefore  paid  eighty-four  dollars,  worth 
at  that  time  ten  times  as  much  in  purchasing  power  as  now. 

2  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations ,  Allen,  i,  pp.  40-45. 

*  Lond.  xx,  24.  LB.  ep.  719. 

4  Allen,  i,  42  fF. 

257 


ERASMUS 


258 

the  latest  thing.  For,  even  without  copyright,  the  first 
publisher  had  a  considerable  advantage  in  being  able  to 
sell  before  a  rival  would  have  time  to  reprint.  The  com¬ 
petition  was  extraordinarily  keen.  During  the  author’s 
lifetime  the  Folly  was  printed  in  nine  different  cities, 
and  in  each  of  two  of  them,  Venice  and  Cologne,  by 
three  separate  publishers.  The  New  Testament  was 
printed  by  seven  publishers  at  Basle  alone.1  What 
Erasmus  got  for  each  of  these  printings  is  not  known; 
doubtless  he  got  nothing  for  most  of  them.  For  first 
editions,  however,  or  for  emended  and  enlarged  editions, 
he  received  something;  thus,  Josse  Bade,  the  great 
printer  of  Paris,  offered  him,  in  1512,  fifteen  florins  for 
the  new  edition  of  the  Adages  and  a  like  sum  for  the 
intended  edition  of  Jerome,  and  apologized  for  the  small¬ 
ness  of  the  honoraria.  If  the  florin  meant  was  the  gold 
coin  of  that  name,  as  is  probable,  the  offer  would  amount 
to  about  thirty-four  dollars,  or  seven  pounds,  for  each 
manuscript,  at  a  time  when  money  had  ten  times  the 
purchasing  power  that  it  has  now.2 

Such  rewards,  even  eked  out  with  special  fees  for  odd 
jobs  like  writing  epitaphs3  and  panegyrics  to  order, 
would  have  furnished  a  sorry  support  to  the  man  of 
letters,  had  they  not  been  supplemented  by  extremely 
handsome  gifts  and  pensions  from  powerful  and  wealthy 
patrons.  The  annuity  granted  by  the  emperor  caused 
its  recipient  enormous  trouble,  remaining  in  arrears  or 
in  abeyance  for  years  together,  partly  on  account  of  the 
chronic  disorder  of  the  imperial  finances,  partly  because 
of  the  rascality  of  the  agent  employed,  in  this  case  one 
Peter  Barbier.4  In  1533,  Duke  John  of  Cleves-Jiilich 

1  L.  Enthoven:  “Ueber  Druck  und  Vertrieb  Erasmischer  Werke,”  Neue 
J ahrbiicher  fur  das  klassische  Altertum  ifc.,  xxviii,  1911,  pp.  33—59. 

2  Allen,  epp.  263,  264,  283. 

3  On  writing  an  epitaph  for  Lady  Margaret,  on  December  28,  1512,  see  C.  H. 
Cowper:  Memoir  of  Margaret ,  Countess  of  Richmond  and  Derbyy  ed.  J.  E.  B. 
Mayer,  1874,  pp.  124,  200. 

4  Peter  Barbier  to  Erasmus,  November  1,  1529,  Enthoven,  no.  77;  Barbier 
to  Erasmus,  July  9,  1533,  Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  189.  Erasmus  to  Decius 


259 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

made  a  grant  of  thirty  gold  gulden  per  annum,  which 
was  apparently  regularly  paid.1  So,  throughout  life,  was 
the  English  annuity,  though  Erasmus  feared  that  the 
death  of  Warham,  on  August  22,  1532,  would  interrupt 
it.2  Such,  however,  was  not  the  case,  for  Archbishop 
Cranmer  continued  to  pay  it,  and  other  English  patrons 
lavished  handsome  presents  upon  the  distinguished 
scholar,  among  them  Thomas  Cromwell  and  the  Bishop 
of  Lincoln.3  Other  valuable  gifts  mentioned  were  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Rhenish  gulden  (two  hundred  dollars) 
from  Ferdinand  and  fifty  from  the  Cardinal  of  Trent;4 
two  horses,  a  pacer  and  a  trotter,  from  Christopher  von 
Stadion,  Bishop  of  Augsburg,5  three  hundred  florins,  with 
an  invitation  to  visit  Brabant  from  the  emperor,  Maria 
the  Regent,  and  the  chancellor,6  and  an  unspecified  sum 
from  Dantiscus,  a  Polish  bishop.7  Doubtless  there  were 
many  other  such  perquisites  of  which  we  know  nothing.8 

Erasmus  frequently  complained  that  his  income  was 
too  small  for  his  position,  and  to  one  with  so  many  noble 

August  22,  1534,  Miaskowski:  Erasmiana,  no.  36;  To  A.  Fugger,  July  7, 
1529,  Lond.  xxiii,  14,  LB.  no.  1064.  Erasmus  complained  that  Barbier  had 
robbed  him  once  of  one  hundred  florins  and  that  the  pension  remained  seven 
whole  years  unpaid. 

1  Duke  William’s  note  of  thanks  for  Erasmus’s  “foetura,”  November  10, 
1529,  ed.  F.  Wachter:  Zeitschrift  des  Bergischen  Geschichtsvereins,  xxx,  1894, 
p.  201;  Pension  from  Duke  John,  April  20,  1533,  Vischer:  Erasmiana,  no.  6, 
with  note  in  Erasmus’s  hand  that  it  was  paid  at  the  Feast  of  John  the  Baptist 
(June  24),  1533,  Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  183. 

2  Erasmus  speaks  of  this  and  of  his  fears  in  letters  to  Tomicki,  March  10, 
1 53 3,  Miaskowski:  Jahrbuch  fur  Philosophic ,  1900,  p.  323,  and  in  a  letter  to 
Amerbach,  published  in  Epistolce  ad  Bon.  Amerbachium ,  no.  64,  April  21, 
1532  (not  1531).  . 

3  Gerard  Phrysius  forwarded  thirty  pounds  from  Cranmer,  June  8,  1533, 
Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  187;  cf.  Erasmus  to  Decius,  August  22,  1534, 
Miaskowski,  p.  333.  In  1535  T.  Bedill,  Warham’s  old  secretary,  forwarded 
twenty  angels  from  Cromwell,  eighteen  from  Cranmer,  and  fifteen  from  the 
Bishop  of  Lincoln,  Enthoven,  no.  138.  Lond.  xxvii,  51;  LB.  ep.  1296.  A 
letter  of  March  12,  1536,  speaks  of  delay  in  paying  the  English  pension, 
Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII,  x,  no.  478. 

4  From  J.  Loble,  May  11,  1533,  Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  184. 

B  From  Stadion,  August  8,  1533,  ibid.,  no.  191. 

6  To  More,  October  12,  1533,  Lond.  xxvii,  45;  LB.  ep.  1256. 

7  Miaskowski:  Erasmiana,  no.  36. 

8  A  list  of  some  other  known  gifts,  however,  in  Forstemann-Giinther,  p.  345. 


260 


ERASMUS 


and  royal  friends  it  must  have  seemed  narrow.  Never¬ 
theless,  he  was  able  to  live  in  comfort,  with  good  wine, 
horses,  and  servants,  and  above  all  with  a  good  library. 
In  1 525  he  raised  money  by  selling  this,  reserving  the 
right  to  use  it  during  his  lifetime.  The  purchaser  was 
John  Laski,  nephew  of  the  famous  Bishop  of  Gnesen  of 
the  same  name,  a  baron  of  Siegratz  in  Poland.  The 
family  had  stood  in  friendly  relations  with  the  scholar 
ever  since  two  of  the  brothers,  Hieroslaus  and  Stanislaus, 
paid  him  a  visit  in  1523.1  The  contract  of  sale,  which  is 
not  uninteresting,  reads  as  follows:2 


Basle,  June  20,  1525. 

I,  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  have  sold  my  library  to  the  illustrious 
Polish  Baron,  John  Laski,  for  three  hundred  crowns  [two  hundred 
dollars]  on  condition  that  as  long  as  I  live  the  use  of  the  books  may 
amicably  be  allowed  to  me  as  well  as  to  him,  but  that  they  shall 
permanently  belong  to  him  and  to  his  heirs.  As  a  pledge  he  has  an 
inventory  of  the  books.  All  additions  to  the  library  shall  belong  to 
him,  except  future  purchases  of  high-priced  manuscripts,  for  which 
a  special  agreement  must  be  made.  In  witness  whereof  I,  Erasmus, 
have  written  this  with  my  own  hand  and  affixed  the  seal  of  my  ring 
representing  Terminus. 

Half  the  price  was  paid  on  the  spot;  the  other  half 
after  the  owner’s  death  to  his  heirs.  On  March  21,  1533, 
Erasmus  wrote  Laski  that  the  library  was  now  worth 
one  hundred  florins  more  than  it  was  when  he  sold  it, 
and  offering  to  give  back  the  price  and  get  another  pur¬ 
chaser.3  This,  however,  was  not  done,  for  on  March  5, 
1534,  he  wrote  again  that  he  left  the  library  at  Laski’s 
disposal.4  After  the  second  half  of  the  money  had  been 
paid,  on  November  12,  1536,  to  Boniface  Amerbach,  the 
books  were  sent  in  three  boxes  on  January  11,  1538, 5 


1  Casimir  von  Miaskowski:  Der  Briefwechsel  des  Erasmus  mit  Polen,  1901, 
p.  44. 

2  Burigny:  Vie  d’Erasme,  1 757,  ii,  442;  Miaskowski:  “Erasmiana,”  Jahr- 
liicher  fur  Philosophie,  vol.  xv,  p.  105,  no.  2  (1901). 

3  Miaskowski:  Erasmiana ,  no.  31. 

4  Ibid.,  no.  34. 

8  Ibid.,  no.  44. 


26i 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

and  reached  the  Polish  baron  on  April  5th.1  They  later 
came  into  the  hands  of  John  Egolph  of  Kroningen  and 
in  1573  passed  to  the  University  of  Ingolstadt,  now  the 
University  of  Munich.2 

On  January  22,  152 7,  Erasmus  drew  up  his  will.3  He 
made  Boniface  Amerbach  his  trustee;  the  executors  were 
to  be  Basil  Amerbach,  Beatus  Rhenanus,  and  Jerome 
Froben.  Boniface  was  to  receive  his  rings,  his  spoon  of 
pure  gold,  and  the  golden  double  cup  given  by  Duke 
George.  Henry  Glarean,  Louis  Ber,  Basil  Amerbach, 
Jerome  and  John  Froben,  Sigismund  Gelen,  Froben ’s 
proof-reader,  Botzheim,  and  Conrad  Goclen,  were  all 
remembered  with  tokens.  The  fact  of  the  library  being 
sold  to  John  Laski  was  noted.  Arrangements  were  made 
for  Froben  to  print  a  complete  edition  of  the  works, 
according  to  the  plan  laid  down  in  the  Catalogue  of 
Lucubrations ,  a  provision  afterward  carried  out.  The 
editions  of  Jerome,  Hilary,  and  other  fathers  were  not 
to  be  included  in  the  works  if  inconvenient.  The  editors 
were  to  be  Glarean,  Goclen,  Rhenanus,  the  two  Amer- 
bachs,  and  Sigismund  Gelen.  If  any  refused  to  act,  the 
trustee  might  appoint  others.  A  copy  of  the  works  was 
to  be  sent  to  Warham,  to  Tunstall,  to  More,  to  Longland, 
Bishop  of  Lincoln;  to  Queen’s  College,  Cambridge;  to 
Fisher,  to  the  Royal  Library  in  Spain,  to  Wm.  Croy, 
Bishop  of  Toledo;  to  Ferdinand,  to  Bernard  von  Cles, 
Bishop  of  Trent;  to  Baptista  Egnatius,  to  the  Collegium 
Trilingue  at  Louvain,  to  the  College  of  the  Lily  at 
Louvain,  to  the  college  to  be  founded  by  Coutrell  at 
Tournay,  to  Francis  Craneveld,  Senator  of  the  Town 
Council  of  Mechlin;  to  the  Abbot  of  St.  Bavon  at  Ghent, 
to  Marcus  Laurinus  for  the  library  of  the  College  of  St. 
Donatian  at  Bruges,  of  which  he  was  dean;  to  Nicolas 

1  Ibid.,  no.  43,  dated  April  5,  1537,  presumably  meaning  1537-38.  Inter¬ 
esting  details  of  the  transportation  of  the  library  in  a  letter  of  A.  Fritsch  to 
Boniface  Amerbach  in  Pamietnik  Liter acki,  Lemberg,  1905,  p.  512. 

2  Forstemann-Gunther,  p.  345. 

5  Published  by  J.  B.  Kan:  Erasmiana ,  1891,  p.  6  ff.  Also  by  S.  Sieber: 
Das  Testament  von  Erasmus ,  1889,  with  other  documents. 


262 


ERASMUS 


Everard,  President  of  the  Estates  of  Holland,  or  to  his 
successor;  to  Hermann  Lethmaat,  and  to  the  library  of 
the  monastery  at  Egmond.  A  servant,  Quirinus,  was 
remembered  with  a  legacy  of  two  hundred  gulden. 
Directions  for  a  funeral  neither  sordid  nor  pretentious 
completed  the  document. 

Although  Erasmus  joked  about  his  testament,  saying 
that  he  was  in  the  same  condition  as  the  poor  priest  of 
Louvain  who  made  a  will  in  these  terms,  “  I  have  nothing; 
I  owe  much;  the  rest  I  give  to  the  poor,”1  yet  the 
inventory  attached  to  his  will,  dated  April  10,  1534, 2 
shows  that  he  possessed  a  large  number  of  gold  and  silver 
vessels  and  ornaments  given  him  by  distinguished 
persons,  as  well  as  a  good  outfit  of  furniture,  clothes,  and 
household  utensils.  Among  the  patrons  who  had  given 
him  gold  clocks,  cups,  spoons,  or  other  handsome  articles, 
were  mentioned  Christopher  von  Scheidlowitz,  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Mainz,  William  Mountjoy,  Anthony  Fugger, 
Julius  Pflug,  Damian  a  Goes,  Pirckheimer,  the  Laskis, 
and  several  other  prelates  and  noblemen.  He  also 
enumerates  his  cloths,  napkins,  silk  mantles,  gowns,  hose, 
collars,  twenty-four  shirts,  towels,  feather  beds,  cushions, 
parlor  rugs,  tapestries,  kitchen  utensils,  forks,  a  hammer, 
an  egg-beater  ( cochleare  spumarium)>  candle  snuffers, 
boxes  for  spices,  axes,  iron  trunks,  a  mirror,  a  shaving 
set,  a  purse,  rings,  five  beds,  couches,  and  curtains,  as 
well  as  tongs,  an  ear  probe,  and  other  instruments. 

Erasmus  took  extraordinary  pains  to  get  legal  sanction 
for  his  will.  On  July  8,  1525,  he  had  received  permission 
from  Pope  Clement  VII  to  leave  his  property  as  he 
wished;  he  thrice  got  similar  permission  from  the 
tribunals  at  Basle,3  and  once  a  diploma  to  the  same  effect 

1To  Ber,  January  26,  1527;  L.  C.  ep.  752;  original  first  published  ibid,  ii, 
P-  532  *■ 

2  L.  Sieber:  Das  Mobiliar  des  Erasmus ,  1891,  and  Kan:  Erasmiana,  1891. 

3  Clement’s  breve,  and  two  of  the  Basle  permissions,  dated  January  24, 
1527,  and  June  13,  1527,  in  Sieber:  Das  Testament  des  Erasmus ,  the  third 
permission  mentioned  in  a  letter  to  Amerbach,  January  15th,  no  date,  Epistola 
ad  Amerbachium ,  no.  17 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29  263 

from  Ferdinand  to  the  Town  Council  of  Freiburg.1  He 
also  speaks  of  a  similar  diploma  from  the  emperor.2 
Twice  he  altered  his  will  in  details,  while  leaving  the 
main  provisions  as  to  the  trusteeship  intact,  once  on 
June  5,  1535,  and  once  on  January  22,  1536. 3  The  will 
was  probated  on  January  11,  1538, 4  when  his  property 
was  estimated  at  the  sum  of  seven  thousand  gulden 
($3,920),  besides  a  fine  lot  of  cups. 

For  seven  and  a  half  years  Erasmus  made  Basle  his 
headquarters.  From  here,  however,  his  restless  spirit 
ever  urged  him  to  make  visits  to  neighboring  cities.  In 
September,  1522,  with  two  companions,  Henry  von 
Eppendorf  and  Beatus  Rhenanus,  he  visited  another 
devoted  friend,  John  Botzheim,  a  Canon  of  Constance, 
whose  house  was  a  center  of  hospitality  for  men  of  arts 
and  letters.  His  excuse  was  an  invitation  to  visit  Rome, 
but  if  he  ever  seriously  entertained  the  idea  of  continuing 
the  journey  south,  an  attack  of  illness  prevented  him. 
In  a  fascinating  letter5  he  described  his  reception  and 
experiences  at  Constance. 

Botzheim’s  house  might  seem  the  home  of  the  Muses;  there  is  no 
spot  in  it  without  some  beauty  or  some  elegance;  it  is  never  silent, 
but  always  alluring  to  the  eyes  of  men  because  of  its  speaking  pictures. 
In  the  summer  court,  where,  as  he  said,  he  had  just  prepared  a  table 
for  me,  stood  Paul,  teaching  the  people.  On  another  wall  Christ  sat 
on  the  mountain,  teaching  his  disciples,  while  the  apostles  set  out 
across  the  hills  to  publish  the  gospel.  Along  the  smoke  closet6  sat  the 
priests,  scribes,  and  Pharisees,  with  the  elders,  conspiring  against  the 
already  waxing  gospel.  Elsewhere  the  nine  sisters  of  Apollo  sang; 
and  the  naked  Graces,  true  symbol  of  simple  benevolence  and  friend- 


1  Horawitz:  Erasmiana ,  iii,  p.  775.  ( Sitzungsberichte  der  K.  K.  Akademie 
der  Wissenschaften  zu  Wien ,  vol.  108,  1885). 

2  E pistoles  ad  Amerbachium ,  no.  17. 

3  Mentioned  by  Siedler:  Das  Testament  des  Erasmus. 

4  Miaskowski:  Erasmiana ,  no.  44. 

5  To  M.  Laurinus,  February  1,  1523;  Lond.  xxiii,  6;  LB.  ep.  650.  On  the 
date,  Zwinglis  Werke ,  vii,  584.  Cf.  further,  K.  Hartfelder:  “Der  human- 
istische  Freundenkreis  des  Erasmus  in  Konstanz,”  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Ge- 
schichte  des  Oberrheins ,  viii,  1893,  pp.  24  IF.  K.  Walchner:  /.  von  Botzheimy 
1836,  pp.  29  ff. 

6 /.<?.,  for  ripening  wine,  or  smoking  meat. 


ERASMUS 


264 

ship,  were  seen.  But  why  should  I,  in  this  letter,  continue  to  depict 
the  whole  house,  the  splendors  and  delights  of  which  you  could  hardly 
examine  in  ten  days?  But  in  all  that  house,  everywhere  so  lovely, 
nothing  is  lovelier  than  the  host  himself.  He  has  the  Muses  and 
Graces  more  in  his  breast  than  in  his  pictures,  more  in  his  manners 
than  on  his  walls.  .  .  . 

I  became  so  ill  that  I  made  neither  my  friends  nor  myself  happy; 
otherwise,  nothing  was  lacking  to  the  greatest  pleasure.  Good 
heavens!  what  a  hospice,  what  a  host,  what  handsome  attendants, 
what  magnificence,  what  plays,  what  readings,  what  songs!  O 
banquets  and  feasts  of  the  gods!  I  should  not  have  envied  the  gods 
of  the  poets  their  nectar  and  ambrosia  had  my  health  been  a  little 
better.  The  situation  of  the  place  itself  is  pleasing.  Hard  by  is  the 
wonderfully  beautiful  lake  of  Constance,  stretching  many  miles  in 
either  direction  and  always  lovely.  The  wooded  mountains  showing 
themselves  everywhere,  some  afar,  some  near  by,  add  charm  to  the 
scene.  For  there  the  Rhine,  as  though  wearied  with  his  journey 
through  the  rough  and  rugged  Alps,  refreshes  himself  as  it  were  in  a 
pleasant  inn,  and,  slipping  softly  through  the  middle  of  the  lake, 
recovers  at  Constance  his  channel  and  his  name  together,  for  the 
lake  prefers  to  owe  its  name  to  the  city.  ...  It  is  said  to  be  well 
stocked  with  fish,  and  of  an  incredible  depth,  so  that  the  deepest  part 
measures  a  hundred  cubits.  For  they  say  that  huge  mountains  are 
covered  by  this  lake.  The  Dominican  prior,  a  good  and  learned  man, 
especially  eloquent  in  preaching,  gave  us  from  the  lake  an  enormous 
fish,  which  the  vulgar  call  a  trout,1  a  gift  worthy  of  a  king  in  our 
country. 

The  Rhine,  leaving  the  lake  to  the  right,  slowly  flows  past  the  city 
of  Constance,  and  as  though  in  wanton  play  makes  an  island  occupied 
by  a  fine  convent  of  nuns;  soon  gathering  itself  together  it  makes  a 
smaller  lake  which,  for  some  unknown  reason,  is  called  Venetus.2 
From  this  it  rolls  on  in  an  even  bed,  somewhat  eddying  but  neverthe¬ 
less  navigable,  to  the  town,  formerly  an  imperial  residence,  called 
Schiflfhausen,3  probably  on  account  of  the  ferry  there  situated  before 
there  was  a  bridge.  Not  far  away  are  some  cataracts  through  which 
the  Rhine  rushes  with  a  great  noise;  and  as  it  is  broken  elsewhere 
frequently  by  cataracts  and  rocks  it  is  unfit  for  navigation  until  it 
gets  to  Basle. 

But  now  my  story  must  get  back  to  Constance,  which  is  famous 

1  “Quam  Trottom  appellat  vulgus”;  the  ordinary  German  name  is 
“Forelle.”  They  are  delicious. 

2  Now  called  the  Unter-See. 

5  Now  Schaffhausen.  Erasmus  derived  the  name  from  the  German  words 
for  “ship”  and  “houses.”  In  the  local  dialect  it  is  still  called  Schafusa,  with 
the  first  vowel  obscure  and  a  strong  accent  on  the  second. 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29  265 

for  nothing  more  than  for  its  ancient  and  by  no  means  ugly  cathedral. 
It  is  also  famous  for  the  Council  held  there  of  old  under  the  presidency 
of  the  emperor,  and  most  of  all  for  the  burning  of  Huss.  .  .  .  We 
spent  there  almost  three  weeks. 

Within  a  few  months  after  his  return  home  Eras¬ 
mus  was  off  again  to  visit  Besan^on,  at  that  time1  an 
Imperial  Free  City.  Invited  by  Feric  Carondelet, 
brother  of  the  Archbishop  of  Palermo,  he  enjoyed 
the  Burgundian  wine,  which  he  believed  very  whole¬ 
some  to  the  stomach.  “O  Burgundy/’  he  cried,  “worthy 
to  be  called  mother  of  men,  since  you  have  such  milk 
in  your  breasts!”2  His  visit,  however,  was  marred  by 
another  illness,  and  by  sinister  rumors  circulated  by  the 
Lutherans,  angry  at  his  recent  polemic  against  Hutten.3 

Another  little  trip  that  Erasmus  made  about  this  time 
was  to  Freiburg  in  the  Breisgau,  at  the  invitation  of  his 
friend  Ulrich  Zasius,  one  of  the  most  famous  jurisconsults 
of  the  day  and  professor  of  law  in  the  university  of  that 
town.  Their  acquaintance  had  begun  in  1514,  with  a 
respectful  letter  from  Zasius  to  the  “great  Rotterdamer.”4 
In  the  next  year  the  jurist  invited  Amerbach  and 
Erasmus  to  his  daughter’s  wedding,5  and  the  friendship 
thus  pleasantly  begun  lasted  until  the  death  of  Zasius, 
for  whom  the  humanist  wrote  an  epitaph.6  Zasius  was 
one  of  those  who  wrote  against  Lee.7  Of  his  friend  he 
wrote  to  Boniface  Amerbach,  on  June  5,  1521,  “How 
shall  I  not  exult  about  Erasmus,  who  to  me  is  the  image — 
I  will  not  say  of  great  Apollo,  but  of  a  great  Divinity?”8 

1  Until  1668. 

1  LB.  ep.  650,  col.  756. 

3  To  Pirckheimer,  June  3,  1521,  Lond.  xxx,  37;  LB.  App.  ep.  327;  To  Noel 
Beda,  1525  (1524?),  Lond.  xix,  97;  LB.  ep.  784.  To  Pirckheimer,  July  21, 
1524,  Lond.  xxx,  36;  LB.  ep.  684. 

4  Allen,  ep.  303. 

6  Udalrici  Zasii  E pistoles,  ed.  J.  A.  Riegger,  1774,  i,  251. 

6  Ibid.,  209.  Zasius  died  on  November  24,  1535. 

7  To  Eramus,  July  13,  1520,  ibid.,  297.  “Proceed,  great  hero,  as  you  have 
begun;  I  care  not  for  that  ridiculous,  senseless  man.” 

8  Ibid,  ii,  45.  “Super  Erasmo  quomodo  non  gestiam,  qui  mihi  est  instar 
magni  non  dico  Apollinis,  sed  Numinis.”  A  classical  phrase  almost  proverbial, 
though  not  in  the  Adagia. 


266 


ERASMUS 


Not  long  after  the  humanist’s  return  from  the  Nether¬ 
lands  to  Basle  he  paid  a  visit  to  Freiburg,1  of  which  he 
gives  the  following  account  in  the  Colloquies ,  using  for 
his  own  name  the  transparent  disguise  of  Eros: 

You  know  Eros,  an  old  man,  now  a  sexagenarian,  with  health  more 
fragile  than  glass,  afflicted  with  daily  maladies  of  the  worst  sort  and 
burdened  with  heavy  labors  and  study  that  might  break  down 
even  Milo.  In  addition  to  this,  by  a  certain  natural  tendency,  even 
from  boyhood  he  hated  fish  and  was  impatient  of  fasting.  .  .  . 
Recently  at  the  invitation  of  friends  he  visited  Freiburg,  a  city  not 
altogether  worthy  of  its  name.  It  was  at  the  time  of  Lent. 

And  yet,  continues  the  interlocutor,  in  order  to  offend 
no  one  Eros  ate  fish.  He  felt  illness  coming  on  when 
Glaucoplutus,2  a  learned  man  and  one  of  authority  there, 
invited  him  to  breakfast.  Eros  accepted  on  condition 
that  he  should  eat  nothing  but  two  eggs,  but  when  he 
got  there  he  found  a  whole  chicken  prepared.  Indignant, 
he  ate  nothing  but  the  eggs,  and  then  got  on  his  horse. 
The  smell  of  that  chicken,  however,  reached  the  syco¬ 
phants,  who  made  as  much  fuss  about  it  as  if  ten  men 
had  died  of  poison. 

Fuller  information  as  to  the  sequel  to  this  unecclesi- 
astical  repast  reaches  us  through  a  letter  of  Erasmus  to 
Zasius,  which  he  thought  prudent  not  to  publish  himself.3 
He  heard  that  Zasius  had  been  called  into  court  for  offer¬ 
ing  a  chicken  in  Lent.  Notwithstanding  the  disclaimer 
in  the  just  quoted  Colloquy ,  it  is  evident  that  Erasmus 
had  partaken  of  it,  for  he  excused  himself  for  not  having 
observed  “the  superstition  of  foods”  by  alleging  that 
he  was  suffering  terrible  torture  from  the  stone  and 
might  have  endangered  his  life  had  he  fasted.  At  Basle, 
he  says,  meat  is  sold  on  fast  days,  and  it  is  better  that  six 
hundred  men  who  did  not  need  it  should  eat  than  that 
one  who  really  needed  it  should  perish  for  the  lack  of  it. 

1  “Ichthyophagia,”  LB.  i,  805.  This  colloquy  appeared  in  1526;  on  the  other 
hand,  Erasmus’s  epistle  to  Zasius  about  it  is  dated  February  20,  1523,  which 
should  probably  be  altered  to  1525. 

2  Ulrich  Zasius.  See  infra,  p.  294,  n.  1. 

8  Zasii  ipistola,  300  ff.  February  20,  1523  (1525?). 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29  267 

Erasmus  added  that  he  did  not  blame  the  emperor  for 
laying  stress  on  such  things,  for  he  was  misled  by 
Dominicans  and  Franciscans,  and  will  learn  better  with 
age  and  experience.  He  will  then  learn  that  there  are 
worse  faults  to  punish,  such  as  highway  robbery,  and 
worse  evils  to  correct,  such  as  the  calamities  of  harmless 
peasants,  spoliation  of  the  people,  tumults,  wars,  and 
massacres.  But  now  the  magistrates  who  punish  men 
for  not  fasting  let  them  go  scot-free  for  adultery.  He 
himself  hastened  to  get  a  dispensation  from  fasting  from 
the  papal  legate  Campeggio.1 

Erasmus  naturally  cared  little  for  the  outward  cere¬ 
monies  of  the  Church.  “My  mind  is  Christian,”  he  is 
once  reported  to  have  said,  “  but  my  stomach  is  Lutheran  .”2 
Though  he  ate  meat  when  he  needed  it,  his  habits  were 
temperate.  His  ordinary  breakfast  was  one  egg  and  a 
cup  of  water  boiled  with  sugar.  For  lunch  he  had  milk 
of  almonds  and  pressed  grapes.3  Though  he  liked  wine, 
he  was  always  temperate  in  its  use.4 

A  certain  abstemiousness  was  recommended  for  reasons 
of  his  health,  which  for  years  had  been  far  from  robust. 
Frequent  colds,  occasional  attacks  of  worse  diseases,  like 
the  plague,  gout,  rheumatism,  and  a  malady  of  the 
pancreas,5  are  often  spoken  of  in  his  letters.  When  he 
migrated  from  Basle  to  Freiburg  in  1529  he  had  been 
unable  to  ride  horseback  for  two  years,  and  had  to  be 
carried  in  a  litter.6 * 8  Twenty  years  before,  at  Venice,  he 
had  first  felt  the  symptoms  of  the  disease  of  the  bladder 
known  as  the  stone,  and  as  time  went  on  he  suffered  from 
gout  and  rheumatism,  other  signs  of  a  superfluity  of  uric 


1  Dated  February  2,  1525,  W.  Vischer:  Erasmiana,  no.  5. 

s  Melanchthoniana  p&dogogica,  ed.  K.  Hartfelder,  1892,  p.  175. 

*  LB.  i,  805.  Colloquies ,  “Ichthyophagia.” 

4  In  one  letter  he  speaks  of  having  drunk  two  kegs  (vasa)  in  ten  months, 

Lond.  xxvii,  40;  LB.  ep.  1260. 

6  The  “pancreatica  valitudo”  is  spoken  of  in  a  letter  of  his  amanuensis 

Gilbert  Cousin  to  Amerbach,  September  11,  1534;  manuscript  in  the  Basle 
archives,  kindly  communicated  to  me  in  photograph  by  Prof.  Edna  Virginia 
Moffett,  of  Wellesley  College. 

8  Lond.  xxiii,  14;  LB.  ep.  1064. 


268 


ERASMUS 


acid  in  the  system.  This  diathesis  is  fostered  partly  by 
a  heavy  meat  diet,  such  as  was  then  in  vogue  among  the 
well-to-do,  but  chiefly  by  the  use  of  alcohol.  Strange  to 
say,  this  was  so  far  from  being  understood  that  wine 
was  actually  prescribed  as  a  remedy,1  the  only  effort 
being  to  get  a  vintage  sufficiently  good.  Other  medicines 
also  frequently  did  more  harm  than  good,  though 
whether  this  was  the  case  with  turpentine,  which  our 
patient  speaks  of  using,  I  cannot  say.  Baths  were  also 
prescribed,  but  being  unused  to  them  the  sick  man  was 
afraid  to  follow  his  physicians’  advice  in  this  respect. 
Though  more  enlightened  than  many  of  his  contempora¬ 
ries,  the  old  scholar  did  not  disdain  to  use  a  charm, 
namely  a  cup  marked  with  an  “ astrological  lion”  which 
was  supposed  to  impart  virtue  to  his  drink.2 

At  one  time  he  consulted  a  man  who  had  a  great 
reputation  at  that  time,  a  strange  mixture  of  scientist 
and  charlatan,  of  empiricist  and  empiric,  and  whose 
megalomaniac  character  is  well  indicated  by  his  pre¬ 
tentious  name:  Philippus  Theophrastus  Aureolus  Bom- 
bastes  Paracelsus.  While  he  actually  did  something  to 
free  medicine  from  the  bondage  of  Galen  and  Hippoc¬ 
rates,  and  while  he  made  a  few  contributions  to  science, 
philosophy,  and  theology,  he  mixed  the  wffiole  in  such  a 
mass  of  cloudy  incomprehensibility  that  it  is  difficult  to 
assign  him  a  high  place  among  the  discoverers.  In  1526 
he  came  to  Basle,  was  appointed  city  physician  and 
professor  of  medicine  at  the  university,  and  made  a  few 
notable  cures,  among  them  that  of  Erasmus’s  friend 
Froben.  But  his  insolence  and  self-conceit  soon  won  the 
dislike  of  the  local  apothecaries  and  physicians  and  he  was 
obliged  to  leave  the  town.  Erasmus,  impressed  by  the 
cure  of  his  friend,  consulted  Paracelsus  by  letter,  and 
received  a  reply  that  the  sufferer  was  taking  the  wrong 
treatment,  but  that  if  he  would  follow  the  advice  of  his 
new  doctor  he  would  have  a  long,  quiet,  and  healthy 

1  Lond.  xxiii,  14;  LB.  ep.  1064. 

2  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations ,  Allen,  i,  46. 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29  269 

life.1  Erasmus  marveled  that  so  accurate  a  diagnosis 
could  have  been  made  by  a  man  who  had  seen  him  but 
once.  “I  have  time,”  he  added,  “ neither  to  be  cured, 
nor  to  be  ill,  nor  to  die,  so  borne  down  am  I  by  labor  and 
study.”  How  far  the  treatment  was  continued  we  do 
not  know,  nor  with  what  results,  but  the  lack  of  evidence 
makes  us  suspect  either  that  the  humanist  discontinued 
employing  a  physician  who  undoubtedly  had  a  good  deal 
of  the  quack  in  his  make-up,  or  that  Paracelsus  was  not 
sufficiently  encouraged  by  his  patient’s  frank  statement 
that  he  could  pay  better  in  gratitude  than  in  money. 

The  academic  seclusion  of  the  scholar  did  not  wholly 
shut  out  the  noise  of  stirring  events.  The  year  1525 
saw  the  most  terrible  rising  of  the  lower  classes  that 
Germany  ever  witnessed.  The  revolt  of  the  peasants, 
starting  in  the  autumn  of  1524  in  the  highlands  between 
theupper  Rhine  and  the  sourcesofthe  Danube,  swept  in  all 
directions  until  nearly  the  whole  Empire  was  involved. 
The  first  serious  check  to  it  was  given  at  Leipheim,  on 
April  4,  1 525,  and  after  that  it  was  suppressed  with  great 
severity  and  enormous  slaughter.  The  old  scholar  at 
Basle  was  not  called  upon  to  take  an  active  part  in  the 
movement  on  either  side.  His  letters  betray  some 
nervousness  as  the  fighting  came  near  home.  To  Lupset 
he  wrote  that  the  revolt  was  like  a  hydra,  of  which,  when 
one  head  was  cut  off,  nine  sprang  up  in  its  place.2  To 
Polydore  Vergil,  he  wrote  September  5,  1525:3 

Here  we  have  a  cruel  and  bloody  story;  the  peasants  rush  to  their 
destruction.  Daily  there  are  fierce  conflicts  between  nobles  and 
rustics,  so  near  that  we  can  almost  hear  the  noise  of  the  artillery 
and  the  groans  of  the  dying.  You  may  guess  how  safe  we  are. 

On  September  24,  1525,  he  wrote  to  Everard,  president 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Holland,  that  much  more  than 

1Anna  Stoddart:  Paracelsus ,  1911,  p.  297;  Erasmus’s  reply,  p.  298.  Cf. 
also  p.  83.  Miss  Stoddart  does  not  say  where  she  got  the  letters  she  reprints 
but  the  source  is  given  by  Enthoven,  no.  163.  On  ‘  Paracelsus  in  Basel”  see 
F.  Fischer  in  Beitrage  zur  Vaterlandischen  Geschichte ,  v,  1854. 

2  Lond.  xviii,  n.  LB.  ep.  790. 

3  Lond.  xx,  59,  LB.  ep.  760. 


270 


ERASMUS 


one  hundred  thousand  peasants  had  been  slain  in 
Germany,1  that  daily,  priests,  the  inciters  to  the  re¬ 
bellion,  were  captured,  tortured,  hung,  beheaded,  and 
burned.  The  remedy,  he  added,  though  harsh,  was 
necessary. 

For  the  moment  the  whole  of  Europe  seemed  in 
turmoil.  The  apprehension  and  disgust  with  which 
Erasmus  surveyed  the  situation  is  reflected  in  a  colloquy 
that  was  first  published  in  February,  1526.  Among  the 
evil  signs  of  the  times  there  enumerated  are  the  following: 
the  captivity  of  Francis  I,  the  exile  of  Christian  II  of 
Denmark,  the  foreign  wars  of  Charles,  and  the  domestic 
troubles  of  Ferdinand;  that  all  courts  are  in  want  of 
money;  that  the  peasants  revolt  undeterred  by  their 
own  slaughter;  that  the  people  meditate  anarchy;  that 
the  Church  is  collapsing  under  the  attacks  of  perilous 
sects;  and  that  even  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  is 
called  in  question.2 

Erasmus  continued  to  have  close  relations  with  France, 
to  which  Francis  I,  eager  to  assemble  all  possible  talent 
at  Paris  to  ornament  his  reign,  often  invited  him.  “Alas, 
Bude,”  said  the  king  one  day,  talking  to  that  scholar, 
“we  have  no  Lefevre  in  our  land.”  Bude  replied  that 
Lefevre  was  not  absent.  “Ah!  I  meant  to  say  Erasmus,” 
answered  the  king.3  Accordingly  he  dictated  and  in  part 
wrote  the  following  kind  letter,  dated  Saint-Germain- 
en-Laye,  July  7,  (1523)  :4 

1  LB.  Ep.  781.  iii,  900.  Erasmus’s  estimate  is  perhaps  not  far  from  the 
correct  number. 

2  “Puerpera,”  LB.  i,  766. 

3  To  Marcus  Laurinus,  February  1,  1523;  LB.,  ep.  650,  iii,  col.  757.  On 
Erasmus’s  calls  to  France  see  Felibien:  Historic  de  la  Ville  de  Paris ,  1725,  iii 
’985;  W.  Heubi:  Francois  I  et  le  Mouvement  Intellectuel  en  France ,  1913,  p. 

15.  A.  Lefranc:  Histoire  du  College  de  France ,  1893,  pp.  45  ff. 

4  Vischer:  Erasmiana,  no.  iv.  Vischer  places  this  letter,  which  is  without 
year  date,  in  1522,  on  the  ground  that  Robertet,  who  countersigned  the  letter, 
died  in  1522,  and  by  N.  Weiss:  “Guillaume  Farel,”  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de 
l’ histoire  du  Protestantisme  fran^ais,  1920,  p.  124,  in  1524.  The  true  date  is 
found  by  consulting  the  Actes  de  Francois  /,  1887,  which  shows  that  1523  was 
the  only  year  (1520-1525,  inclusive),  when  Francis  was  at  Saint-Germain-en- 
Laye  on  July  7th.  There  were  many  Robertets  in  Francis’s  service. 


271 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

Dear  and  Good  Friend:  We  have  given  commission  to  our  dear 
and  well-beloved  Claude  Cantiuncula,  the  bearer  of  this,  to  tell  and 
declare  unto  you  certain  things  on  our  part,  in  which  we  very  affec¬ 
tionately  beg  you  to  believe  and  have  entire  faith,  as  you  would  if 
you  heard  them  from  us  personally.  Dear  and  good  Friend,  may  the 
Lord  keep  you  in  his  protection.  [Follows  in  Francis’s  own  hand]  I 
assure  you  that  if  you  wish  to  come  you  will  be  welcome. 

Francis. 

Robertet. 

When  Claude  Cantiuncula  had  delivered  this  to  his 
friend,  Erasmus  hurried  to  complete  the  Paraphrase  to 
the  Gospel  of  Mark ,  which  he  sent  to  Francis  by  his 
servant,  Hilaire  Bertulph,  with  a  letter  dated  December 
17,  1523.1  By  the  same  messenger  he  sent  a  work  called 
Confession ,  dedicated  to  Francis  du  Moulin,  Sieur  du 
Rochefort,  together  with  a  French  translation  of  the 
same  by  Cantiuncula,  dedicated  to  the  king's  sister, 
Margaret  d’Angouleme. 

The  protection  of  the  French  king  was  the  more 
necessary  in  view  of  the  constant  hostility  of  the 
Sorbonne.  The  theological  professors,  headed  by  Noel 
Beda,2  in  whom  alone,  as  Erasmus  once  remarked,  lived 
many  monks,  were  on  the  point  of  taking  action  against 
the  Dutch  humanist,  when  the  king  intervened  by  asking, 
through  his  confessor,  William  Petit,  for  an  account  of 
their  proposed  censure.  The  faculty  then  decided  to 
draw  up  no  articles,  but  to  depute  Beda  to  satisfy  his 
majesty  in  a  personal  audience,  if  he  wished.3 

Further  complications  arose  from  the  zeal  of  Lewis  de 
Berquin,  a  gallant  and  high-minded  French  Reformer 
who,  though  he  did  little  but  translate  the  works  of 

1  Horawitz:  Erasmiana ,  ii,  no.  4  ( Sitzungsberichte ,  Wien,  1879),  with  the 
wrong  date,  May  17th.  On  the  true  date  see  Weiss,  loc.  cit.  On  Hilaire 
Bertulph’s  trip  to  France  see  A.  Roersch:  U Rumanisme  Beige ,  1910,  p.  75  ff. 

2  On  Beda  see  Godet:  Le  College  de  Montaigu ,  pp.  66  ff,  and  A.  Hyrvoix: 
“Noel  Bedier,”  Revue  des  Questions  Historiques ,  vol.  72,  1902,  pp.  578-591. 
Beda  was  principal  of  Montaigu  1503-13;  later  attacked  the  “Mirror  of  a 
Sinful  Soul”  by  Margaret  of  Angouleme,  was  exiled,  and  died  on  February  8, 
1537- 

3  A.  Clerval:  Registres  des  Proves- Verbaux  de  la  Faculte  de  Theologie  de 
Paris,  1917,  p.  402. 


272 


ERASMUS 


others  into  his  native  tongue,  did  that  with  enough 
genius  to  make  his  name  remembered  in  literature  and 
in  the  history  of  Protestantism.1  An  admirer  of 
Erasmus  at  least  as  early  as  15 19, 2  he  put  several  of  his 
works,  and  later  several  tracts  of  Luther,  into  French. 
For  these,  and  for  his  Apology  against  Luther’s  Calum¬ 
niators,  he  was  summoned  before  the  Sorbonne,  on 
June  15,  1523,  and  reprimanded,  while  two  days  later 
his  defense  of  Luther  was  publicly  burnt.3  In  January, 
1524,  the  Sorbonne  subjected  Erasmus’s  Paraphrase  to 
Luke  and  the  Exposition  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer  to  a 
scrutiny.  They  let  the  matter  lie  dormant  for  more  than 
a  year,  however.  In  May  and  June,  1525,  they  examined 
and  condemned  to  be  burnt  French  translations  by 
Berquin,  of  the  Encomium  of  Marriage ,  the  short 
Admonition  to  Prayer,  The  Apostles’  Creed  Explained , 
and  the  Complaint  of  Peace.  It  was  doubtless  this  act 
which  excited  the  apprehension  of  the  humanist  and 
drew  his  attention  to  Berquin.  He  therefore  wrote  him 
on  August  25,  15254  saying  that  he  believed  he  had  made 
the  translations  with  good  intentions,  but  requesting 
him  to  abstain  in  future,  as  he  wished  only  for  peace. 
On  April  17,  1 526, 5  Berquin  replied,  sending  him  a  list 
of  charges  which  he  begged  him  to  answer  in  full,  and 
encouraging  him  by  reporting  a  saying  of  the  king  to 
the  effect  that  the  Sorbonne  is  only  brave  against  the 
weak,  but  fears  to  attack  Erasmus.  The  Dutch  scholar 
was  impressed  by  the  “impudence,  sycophancy,  and 
crass  ignorance”  of  these  articles6  and  wrote  to  Francis 
I,  June  1 6,  1 526, 7  partly  to  defend  himself  from  the 
attacks  of  Beda  and  Sutor,  partly  to  defend  Berquin. 

1  On  Berquin  (1490-April  17,  1529,)  see  Realencyklopddie  fur.protestantiscke 
Theologie  und  Kirche ,  ii,  643,  and  N.  Weiss,  in  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  Phis- 
toire  du  Protestantisme  fran^ais,  1918,  pp.  162  ff. 

s  N.  Berault  to  Erasmus,  March  16,  1519;  Allen,  ep.  925. 

*  Notice  des  Manuscrits  de  la  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  xxxvi,  326. 

4  Postridie  Bartholomei.  Lond.  xix,  87.  LB.  ep.  753. 

6  LB.  App.  ep.  335. 

6  To  Pirckheimer,  June  6,  1526.  Lond.  xxx,  44.  LB.  ep.  823. 

7  Lond.  xxi,  40.  LB.  ep.  826. 


273 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

The  opposing  party  had  been  suspected  of  using  poison, 
he  asserted,  and  had  otherwise  discredited  themselves  by 
their  attacks  on  Lefevre  and  himself.  On  June  14th  he 
wrote  a  similar  apology  to  the  Parisian  Parlement,1 
having  previously  defended  himself  by  a  letter  to  the 
Faculty  of  Paris.2  His  main  line  of  defense  is  to  show 
what  a  difference  there  is  between  Luther  and  himself, 
to  prove  which  he  sends  the  book  directed  by  that 
“poisonous  beast”  against  himself.  Probably  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  Erasmus’s  letter  Francis  gave  the  order, 
July,  1526,  to  free  Berquin  from  prison,3  but  the  Parle¬ 
ment  of  Paris  objected  to  this.  In  October  Berquin  was 
again  arrested,  and,  after  long  proceedings,  of  which  the 
humanist  was  kept  informed,4  he  was  sent  to  the  stake 
on  April  17,  1529. 

Apprised  of  the  death  of  his  admirer,  Erasmus  wrote 
a  detailed  account  of  it  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  a  friend, 
and  published  it  almost  immediately  in  his  Opus  Episto- 
larum  in  August,  1529.5 6  Berquin,  he  said,  unmoved  by 
the  exhortations  of  Bude,  who  was  one  of  the  judges, 
and  undaunted  by  the  fear  of  death,  had  shown  great 
bravery  until  the  last,  wdien  his  speech  to  the  assembled 
crowd  was  drowned  by  the  rattle  of  drums.  The  story 
told  by  the  Franciscan  appointed  as  his  confessor,  that 
he  recanted  at  the  last  moment,  Erasmus  thought 
incredible,  for  he  had  heard  similar  fictions  about  the 
Lutheran  martyrs  at  Brussels.  Without  venturing  to 
say  whether  Berquin  deserved  death  or  not,  he  expressed 
frank  admiration  for  the  courage  and  sincerity  of  a  man 
who  was  certainly  not,  in  his  opinion,  a  Lutheran,  and 
who  sinned  chiefly  through  lack  of  prudence.  Even  had 
Berquin  erred,  he  protested  emphatically,  it  would  be 
unprecedented  to  burn  everyone  for  any  degree  of  error, 

1  Lond.  xx,  44.  LB.  ep.  824. 

2  Jortin:  Erasmus,  i,  492.  June  23,  152 6. 

3  M.  Felibien:  Histoire  de  la  Ville  de  Paris,  1725,  ii,  984. 

4  By  a  letter  of  Gervais  Wain,  dated  Paris,  August  16,  1528.  Forstemann- 

Giinther,  no.  89. 

6  To  C.  Utenhoven,  July  1,  1529.  Lond.  xxiv,  4;  LB.  ep.  1060. 


274 


ERASMUS 


no  matter  how  slight.  This  would  only  result  in  con¬ 
demning,  hanging,  quartering,  burning,  and  beheading 
vast  numbers  of  men,  good  and  bad  alike. 

Though  the  Sorbonne  could  not  burn  Erasmus,  they 
made  things  as  hot  for  him  as  they  were  able.  Together 
with  their  detestation  of  his  tolerant  spirit,  they  cher¬ 
ished  a  grudge  against  a  man  who  frequently  ridiculed 
them.  Irritated  by  a  slighting  allusion  in  the  Colloquies, 
first  published  in  March,  1522,1  Beda  attacked  the  author 
and  Lefevre  d’  Etaples  in  a  pamphlet  in  1526, 2  and  at  the 
same  time  procured  the  condemnation  of  the  Colloquies , 
taking  pains  to  send  their  memorial  on  the  subject  to 
Louvain.3  Among  the  thirty-two  propositions  selected 
for  censure  the  most  interesting  is  an  expression  in  favor 
of  tolerance. 

Erasmus  at  once  expostulated  by  letters  to  the  king,4 
to  Beda,5  and  to  the  University  of  Paris.6  To  the  latter 
he  wrote  that  he  had  hoped  that  if  he  were  driven  out 
by  the  Lutherans  he  might  find  refuge  at  the  Sorbonne, 
but  now  it  assailed  him  more  fiercely  than  did  the 
Reformers. 

While  the  king  again  interfered  to  prevent  further 
action  by  the  Sorbonne,7  Erasmus  revenged  himself  on 
his  three  chief  enemies,  Beda,  Quercus,  and  Sutor,  by 
composing  a  biting  satire  in  one  of  his  Colloquies,  called 
“The  Synod  of  Grammarians,”  first  published  in  1528.8 
Some  one  asks  the  meaning  of  “ Anticomarita”  (“old 
wife”;  cf.  1  Timothy,  iv,  7),  and  is  told  that  “It  means 


1  LB.  i,  631.  Here  it  is  stated  as  incredible  news  from  Paris  that  Beda  is 
wise  and  Quercus  a  preacher. 

2  Bib.  Eras.  3d  series,  6.  Erasmus’s  letter  to  Beda,  Lond.  xix,  91,  LB.  ep .lie 
746,  is  dated  June  15,  1523,  a  mistake  for  1526. 

3  Notices  des  MSS.  de  la  Biblioiheque  Nationals ,  xxxvi,  334;  LB.  ix,  904  AT. 

4  LB.  vi,  943  f, 

5  LB.  ep.  746,  dated  1525  by  mistake  for  1526. 

6  Corpus  Reformatorum,  xcv,  1915,  pp.  740  fF.  This  letter  was  sent  by  Caspar 
Mosager  to  Zwingli  on  October  16,  1526.  LB.  epp.  907,  908,  909.  Enthoven, 
epp.  54,  67. 

7  Catalogue  dss  Actes  de  Francois  I,  1887  fF,  i,  no.  1702. 

8  LB.  i,  824. 


275 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

a  kind  of  beet  (Beta)  which  was  formerly  called  ‘  swim¬ 
ming’  (natatilis,  a  play  on  Beda’s  first  name,  Noel,  or 
Natalis),  because  it  dwells  in  damp,  foul  places,  and 
flourishes  especially  in  privies.  It  has  a  twisted,  knotty 
stalk,  and  a  nasty  smell.”  Later,  allusions  are  brought  in 
to  “the  gall  of  the  oak”  (pun  on  galla,  French,  and 
Quercus,  or  Du  Chene),  and  to  “the  shoemaker’s  black¬ 
ing”  (sutorium  atramentum,  pun  on  Sutor). 

Naturally  this  did  not  conciliate  the  Sorbonnists,  who, 
in  1529,  published  another  attack  on  Erasmus,1  in  the 
following  year  forbade  the  sale  of  his  editions  of  Ambrose 
and  Augustine,  and  in  April,  1532,  censured  another 
work  by  his  hand.  When  Erasmus  heard  of  this  he  knew 
at  last  that  the  idea  he  had  cherished  of  going  to  France 
under  the  king’s  protection2  was  vain.  To  his  friend, 
John  Choler,3  he  wTrote  of  the  new  tumult  at  Paris,  of  the 
search  made  for  his  books  under  the  seal  of  the  absent 
monarch,  and  of  the  hostility  of  Beda,  who  did  more 
through  others  than  in  his  own  person,  and  finally  of 
the  examination  to  which  his  works  had  been  subjected 
by  the  Franciscans,  who  found  a  thousand  errors  in 
them.  “I  see,”  he  concluded,  “that  it  will  simply  come 
to  pass  that,  if  the  Lutheran  cause  declines,  such  a 
tyranny  of  monks  will  arise  as  will  make  us  wish  for 
Luther  again.” 

The  aristocratic  friendships  formed  by  Erasmus  broad¬ 
ened  as  time  went  on.  Among  his  list  of  correspondents 
was  Queen  Margaret  of  Navarre4  and  King  Sigismund  of 
Poland.5 6  His  long  letter  to  the  latter,  May  15,  1527,  on 

1  Determinatio  Facultatis  Theologies  in  Sckola  Parisiense  super  quarn  plurimis 
Assertionibus  Erasmi,  1529,  Bibliographic  des  impressions  des  oeuvres  de  Josse 
Bade  Ascensius ,  par  P.  Renouard,  1908,  ii,  403. 

5  He  had  toyed  with  the  idea  of  going  to  France  as  late  as  March  30,  1527; 
see  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii,  1907,  p.  533;  Notices  et  Extraits  des  MSS.  de  la 
Bibliotheque  Nationale,  xxxvi,  334  fF. 

3  Erasmus  to  Choler,  September  9,  1533;  Pentas  epistolarum  [ed.  G.  Veesen- 
meyer],  Ulm,  1798,  p.  3. 

4  September  28,  1525.  Lond.  xx,  2,  LB.  ep.  764.  Cf.  F.  Genin:  Lettres  in - 

idites  de  la  Reine  de  Navarre,  Marguerite  d' Angouleme,  1841,  p.  460. 

6  Lond.  xxii,  16.  LB.  ep.  860. 


ERASMUS 


276 

the  glories  of  peace,  was  quickly  printed,  to  the  regret 
of  the  writer,1  who  thought  that  it  excited  enmity  against 
him  in  the  court  of  Ferdinand,  though  not  from  the  king 
himself.  This  monarch  promised  four  hundred  gulden  a 
year  if  Erasmus  would  come  to  Vienna.2  One  of  the 
most  interesting  letters  written  to  the  humanist  is  that 
from  a  famulus  who  went  by  the  name  of  Felix  Rex 
Polyphemus,  telling  how  royally  he  was  entertained  at 
Spires,  whither  he  went  bearing  letters  from  his  master, 
as  soon  as  it  was  known  whom  he  served.3  King  Ferdi¬ 
nand  himself  gave  him  an  audience,  said  that  he  would 
do  anything  for  his  master,  and  gave  Polyphemus  a  good 
place,  at  one  hundred  and  thirty  gulden  a  year,  in  his 
guard  of  archers. 

Erasmus’s  relations  with  the  royal  family  of  England 
were  quite  special.  He  had  met  the  boy  Henry  in 
1499, 4  had  corresponded  with  him  during  the  Italian 
years,  and  had  hailed  his  accession  to  the  throne  (1509) 
as  a  triumph  for  humanism  and  progress.  During  the 
long  sojourn  in  England  (1509-14)  Henry  had  received 
him  graciously  and  Queen  Catharine  had  asked  him  to 
become  her  tutor.5  Nevertheless  he  instinctively  felt 
the  coming  storm  and  that  he  would  have  more  freedom 
on  the  Continent. 

He  almost  became  implicated  in  the  quarrel  between 
Luther  and  Henry  VIII,  each  side  suspecting  him,  as 
usual,  of  aiding  and  abetting  the  other.  The  English 
monarch,  proud  of  his  learning,  had  written,  with  the 
help  of  his  ablest  divines  and  scholars,  a  Defense  of  the 
Seven  Sacraments  against  Luther’s  attack  on  them  in  the 
Babylonian  Captivity.  The  work  appeared  in  London  in 


1  Erasmus  to  Christopher  Scheidlowitz,  August  27,  1528.  Horawitz: 
Erasmiana,  i,  no.  12,  and  Miaskowski:  Erasmiana,  iii,  no.  10.  Sigismund  wrote 
to  Erasmus  February  19,  1528,  ibid.,  and  August  17,  1531,  ibid,  no.  12. 

2  John  Faber  forwarded  this  offer  from  Prague,  June  17,  1528,  Forstemann- 
Giinther,  no.  87. 

3  March  23,  1529.  Ibid,  no.  102. 

4  Allen,  i,  p.  6;  Nichols  i,  p.  201. 

5  Allen,  i,  569,  ep.  296;  Nichols,  ep.  290. 


277 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

July,  1521,  and  the  king  almost  immediately  sent  a  copy 
inscribed  in  his  own  hand,  “Pro  D.  Erasmo.”  Another 
copy  Erasmus  saw  while  he  was  Wolsey’s  guest  at  Calais 
in  August,  1521;  Carracciolo  handing  it  to  him.  He 
merely  glanced  at  the  title,  and  remarked:  “I  congrat¬ 
ulate  Luther  on  having  such  an  adversary,”  but  for 
some  reason  the  book  was  not  left  in  his  possession.1 
He  received  one  five  months  later,  however,2  and  not 
long  afterward  an  edition  was  published  at  Strassburg 
with  two  of  his  letters  on  the  subject.3  Some  persons, 
indeed,  suspected  Erasmus  of  having  a  hand  in  the 
composition  of  the  work,  an  ungrounded  suspicion,  but 
one  which  he  took  some  pains  to  deny.  His  letter4  on 
the  authorship  has  been  quoted  from  that  day  to  our  own 
as  proof  that  Henry  wrote  his  own  book.  It  enumer¬ 
ates  the  king’s  accomplishments  as  musician,  horseman, 
mathematician,  and  deep  student  of  Aquinas,  Biel,  and 
Scotus.  If  the  style  resembles  that  of  Erasmus,  the  latter 
explains  it  by  saying  that  Henry  was  Mountjoy’s  pupil 
and  Modntjoy  Erasmus’s  pupil.  As  evidence  of  the  king’s 
ability  to  write  Latin  the  humanist  quotes  a  letter  written 
to  himself,  of  which  he  says  he  has  seen  the  first  draft. 
This  assurance,  which  has  so  often  been  taken  as  conclu¬ 
sive,  has  recently  been  shown  to  be  most  suspicious.5  He 
repeated  his  conviction  that  the  king  composed  the  book 
unaided,  in  a  missive  to  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  saying 
again  that  if  the  style  is  like  his  it  is  because  his  pupil, 

1  Lond.  xxiii,  6,  p.  1229.  LB.  ep.  650.  On  the  whole  affair:  Preserved 
Smith:  “Luther  and  Henry  VIII,”  English  Historical  Review ,  October,  1910. 

2  He  says  in  February  he  received  a  copy  sent  in  August,  ibid.  He  is  probably 
wrong  about  the  date  at  which  it  was  sent,  which  would  allow  too  much  time 
for  the  transmission.  We  know  a  copy  was  sent  him  by  Dr.  W.  Tate  (one  of 
the  collaborators),  December  4,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1246. 

3  Edition  of  1522.  The  letters  (which  had  just  appeared  in  the  Epistolce  ad 
diversos ,  November,  1521)  are  those  to  Warham  and  Pace,  August  23,  1521. 
Allen,  epp.  1227,  1228.  Erasmus  certainly  had  no  hand  in  the  edition  of  the 
Assertio.  Cf.  E.  Voss,  “Murner’s  translation  of  two  letters  of  Erasmus,” 
Journal  of  English  and  Germanic  Philology ,  v,  1904,  287  ff. 

4  To  Cochlaeus,  April  1  (1522),  wrongly  dated  1529,  Lond.  xxiii,  15,  and 
also  LB.  ep.  1038  and  Nichols,  i,  424.  Cf.  Allen,  i,  433. 

8  Allen,  ibid. 


ERASMUS 


278 

Mountjoy,  was  Henry’s  instructor.1  At  the  same  time  he 
highly  extolled  the  monarch,  who  relied  more  on  the  pen 
than  on  the  sword.2 

Luther  answered  the  king  in  July,  1522,  in  as  angry  a 
tone  as  that  of  his  royal  opponent,3  by  his  violence 
alienating  still  more  the  good  opinion  of  the  humanist.4 
Strange  to  say,  Erasmus  was  suspected  of  writing  this 
book,  too,  and  was  so  much  moved  by  the  accusation  that 
he  sent  his  own  servant  to  England  to  reassure  Henry 
and  Wolsey,5  in  which  he  was  apparently  successful. 
Though  the  king  did  not  himself  reply  to  Luther,  he 
urged  his  ablest  subjects,  Fisher  and  More,  to  do  so. 
They  both  complied,  the  latter  under  the  pseudonym 
William  Ross;  Erasmus  knew  this  work,  but  did  not  know 
that  it  was  by  his  friend;  in  his  opinion  it  outstripped 
even  Luther’s  virulence.6  Henry  also  urged  Erasmus  to 
take  up  the  cudgels,  and  so  vehemently  that  the  humanist 
feared  the  king  would  take  it  ill  did  he  not  comply.7  In 
fact,  his  final  decision  to  write  against  the  Wittenberg 
professor  may  have  been  due  in  large  part  to  Britain’s 
monarch. 

A  few  years  later  Erasmus  seemed  likely  to  become 
involved  in  the  great  divorce  on  which  all  Europe  took 
sides.8  It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  a  full  history  of 

1  Basle,  September  3,  1522;  Gess:  Akten  und  Briefe  zur  Kirchenpolitik 
Herzogs  Georg  von  Sachseny  1905,  i,  no.  371;  LB.  ep.  635.  L.  C.  ep.  555. 

1  August  23,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1228. 

*  Contra  Henricum  Anglia  Regem ,  Luthers  Werke ,  (Weimar),  x,  part  ii, 
pp.  175  ff. 

4  To  Laurinus,  February  1,  1523;  Lond.  xxiii,  6,  LB.  ep.  650.  To  Adrian 
VI  (1523),  Lond.  xviii,  20;  LB.  ep.  649. 

5  To  Pirckheimer,  August  29  (1523),  Lond.  xxx.,  33.  Clava  writes  from 
Ghent,  July  5,  1523,  that  Erasmus’s  servant,  Levine,  is  just  back  from 
England  (Enthoven,  ep.  21).  C.  Tunstall,  Bishop  of  London,  wrote,  July  7, 
1523,  that  he  was  glad  to  hear  that  Erasmus  had  nothing  to  do  with  Luther’s 
works.  Lond.  xxii,  22.  LB.  ep.  656. 

6  LB.  x,  1652.  English  Historical  Review ,  October,  1912,  p.  673,  note  23. 

7  To  Pirckheimer,  January  9,  1523;  Lond.  xxx.  30.  LB.  ep.  646. 

8  Preserved  Smith:  The  Age  of  the  Reformationy  1920,  pp.  286  f,  290  f, 
704,  708.  On  Erasmus’s  share  in  it,  Preserved  Smith:  “German  Opinion 
of  the  Divorce  of  Henry  VIII,”  English  Historical  Reviewy  October,  1912, 
pp.  671  ff. 


279 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

the  transaction,  nor  to  probe  Henry's  strangely  mingled 
motives  of  policy,  conscience,  and  lust.  The  failure  of 
Catharine  of  Aragon  to  have  living  issue,  threatening  a 
disputed  succession,  gave  rise  to  rumors  of  divorce  as 
early  as  1 5 14.1  The  birth  of  the  Princess  Mary  in  1516, 
however,  by  giving  the  king  hope  of  other  children,  post¬ 
poned  the  execution  of  the  plan  for  many  years. 

In  view  of  later  developments  it  does  not  seem  unreason¬ 
able  to  suppose  that  the  queen’s  request  to  the  humanist, 
made  through  her  chamberlain,  Lord  Mountjoy,  in  1524 
or  1525,  to  write  her  a  book  on  marriage,  may  have  been 
in  part  due  to  her  anxiety  about  her  position.2  When 
Erasmus  complied,  by  publishing  The  Institution  of 
Christian  Matrimony 3  in  1526,  he  followed  the  previous 
work  of  his  friend,  Lewis  Vives,  on  the  same  subject. 
The  dedicatory  letter,  dated  July  15th,  extols  the  queen 
as  the  example  of  the  most  perfect  wife  of  this  genera¬ 
tion,  as  her  mother,  Isabella  of  Castile,  had  been  before 
her,  and  as  her  daughter  Mary  would  doubtless  be  after 
her. 

Marriage  is  defined  as  a  perpetual  and  legitimate  union 
of  man  and  woman.  The  evils  of  divorce  are  so  thor¬ 
oughly  canvassed  that  one  is  inclined  to  believe  Erasmus 
must  have  known  of  the  suspicions  cast  on  Catharine’s 
marriage.  After  remarking  how  inauspicious  divorce  has 
always  been  considered  even  by  those  nations  which 
allow  it,  and  how  solemn  and  binding  is  wTedlock  in  both 
law  and  religion,  the  writer  begins  to  hedge  by  consid¬ 
ering  the  impediments  to  marriage,  some  of  which  suffice 
to  render  any  marriage  null,  some  of  which  can  break  a 
marriage  contract,  but  not  consummated  wedlock. 
Union  with  a  brother’s  widow  is  expressly  stated  to  be 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers ,  Venetian ,  1509-19,  p.  479. 

*  To  Piso,  September  9,  1526,  Erasmus  writes  that  the  queen  asked  for  the 
book  a  year  ago.  Lond.  xxi,  65,  LB.  ep.  838.  The  dedicatory  epistle  to  the 
queen,  however,  says  that  he  had  promised  Mountjoy  to  write  the  bookTwo 
years  ago.  Lond.  xxix,  40 .  LB.  v,  col.  613  f.  Cf.  also  to  Beda,  June  10,  1525, 
Lond.  xix,  91,  LB.  ep.  746. 

8  Matrimonii  Christiani  Institution  LB.  v,  613  ff. 


28o 


ERASMUS 


an  insufficient  cause  for  nullifying  a  marriage,  the 
reason  being  that  in  some  cases  marriage  with  a  brother’s 
widow  was  expressly  commanded  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  value  of  a  papal  dispensation  is  then  considered;  it 
is  stated  to  be  sufficient  in  some  cases,  but  not  in  all. 
In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  author  takes  a  well- 
balanced  view,  inclining  slightly  to  the  side  of  the  queen. 
The  rest  of  the  work  considers  the  choosing  of  mates, 
which  is  best  left  to  the  parents,  and  the  bringing  up  of 
girls,  the  main  object  being  to  keep  them  unspotted  from 
the  world,  not  letting  them  read  romances  nor  hear  loose 
talk  nor  see  lascivious  pictures,  with  which,  Erasmus 
remarks,  Bibles  are  often  illustrated. 

Catharine  was  apparently  too  busy  to  acknowledge 
the  work  at  once,  but  after  Erasmus  had  written  on 
March  i,  1528,1  gently  reminding  her  of  the  dedication, 
praising  her  virtuous  life,  and  exhorting  her  to  patience 
in  her  present  affliction,  she  directed  Mountjoy  to 
express  her  pleasure,  and  she  sent  a  gift.2  In  the  same 
letter  Mountjoy  voiced  his  hopes  that  Erasmus  would 
come  to  England  and  referred  to  the  invitation  of  the  king. 
But  the  humanist  declined,3 4  for,  as  there  was  no  definite 
offer  of  money,  but  only  a  general  promise  of  freedom, 
the  bid  was  not  attractive.  He  felt  too  old,  moreover, 
easily  to  take  up  a  new  abode,  wishing  only,  as  he  wrote 
More,  a  convenient  place  in  which  to  die. 

By  this  time  the  plan  for  a  divorce  was  well  known. 
Erasmus  received  direct  information  of  a  rumored  sep¬ 
aration  of  “Jupiter  and  Juno”  from  John  Crucius 
Berganus,  who  visited  England  in  1527,  but  did  not 
think  it  safe  to  write  until  he  had  reached  Louvain  in 


1  Lond.  xix,  69,  LB.  ep.  437. 

2  Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  66,  dated  1527.  On  the  true  date  cf.  Vocht: 
“Erasmus’s  Correspondence,”  Englische  Studien,  1909,  p.  386.  Cf.  on  the 
gift,  Lond.  xx,  87,  LB.  ep.  975.  Cf.  also  to  Christopher  Mesias;  March  30, 
1530,  Lond.  xxv,  26;  LB.  ep.  1102. 

3  Henry  to  Erasmus,  September  18  (1527?),  Lond.  xxvii,  31.  Erasmus  to 
Henry,  June  1,  1528,  Lond.  xx,  73;  LB.  ep.  961. 

4  February  29,  1528,  Lond.  xix,  79;  LB.  ep.  936. 


28i 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29 

the  following  January.1  On  September  2d,  Erasmus 
wrote  his  friend  Vives,2  who  was  deeply  concerned  in 
the  matter,  “Far  be  it  from  me  to  mix  in  the  affair  of 
Jupiter  and  Juno,  especially  as  I  know  little  about  it. 
But  I  should  prefer  that  he  should  take  two  Junos  rather 
than  put  away  one.”  “Would  that  Jupiter  and  Juno,” 
replied  Vives,  “might  devote  themselves  not  to  that 
ancient  goddess  Venus,  but  to  Christ,  the  turner  of 
hearts.”3 

In  expressing  a  preference  for  bigamy  to  divorce, 
Erasmus  but  concurred  in  an  opinion  which,  strange  as 
it  seems  to  us,  was  very  commonly  held  at  the  time. 
Not  only  the  Anabaptists,  but  many  more  sober  reform¬ 
ers,  and  not  a  few  Catholics  and  rationalists,  held  the 
view  that  polygamy,  commonly  practiced  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  not  clearly  forbidden  in  the  New,  was  a 
natural  and  in  given  circumstances  a  permissible  state.4 
Whether  Erasmus  wTas  solicited  by  Henry  for  an  opinion, 
as  were  other  learned  doctors,  is  uncertain,  but  the  sub¬ 
ject  continued  to  occupy  his  thoughts.  Early  in  1530  he 
wrote  his  intimate  friend,  Boniface  Amerbach,  that,  as 
Henry  had  not  married  Catharine  from  love,  his  case  is 
a  hard  one,  but  that,  nevertheless,  he  advises  him  to 
marry  his  daughter  to  a  noble  and  to  make  her  son  his 
heir.  However,  he  asks  whether,  considering  the  blood¬ 
shed  that  would  result  from  a  disputed  succession,  a 
dispensation  annulling  the  marriage  might  not  be  given, 
though  it  would  be  hard  on  the  queen.5 6  Amerbach 


1  Enthoven,  no.  12,  wrongly  placed  in  1522.  On  the  true  date  January  28, 
1528,  Vocht,  loc.  cit. 

2  Lond.  xx,  87,  LB.  ep.  975.  On  Vives’  part  in  the  divorce,  cf.  Letters  and 
Papers  of  Henry  VIII.,  iv,  part  ii,  no.  4990  (November,  1528),  and  Foster 
Watson:  “A  Friend  of  Sir  T.  More,”  The  Nineteenth  Century  and  After, 
March,  1918.  Opera,  vii,  134.  Vives  to  Henry  VIII,  January  31,  1531. 

3  October  1,  1528.  LB.  ep.  990.  Vivis  Opera,  1798,  vii,  192. 

4  Preserved  Smith:  The  Age  of  the  Reformation,  1920,  pp.  507;  “German 
Opinion  of  the  Divorce  of  Henry  VIII,”  English  Historical  Review ,  1912,  pp. 
673  ff.  W.  W.  Rockwell:  Die  Doppelehe  des  Landgraf  Philipp  von  Hessen, 

1904. 

6  Erasmi  epistolcz  ad  Bon.  Amerbachium ,  1779,  no.  11. 


282 


ERASMUS 


replied,1  on  February  28th,  that  the  moot  question  was 
one  for  jurists,  and  that  the  pope  had  the  power  of  grant¬ 
ing  divorce  only  in  extreme  cases.  Though  it  is  not 
certain  that  another  marriage  would  produce  a  son, 
Amerbach  added:  “Were  I  a  Lutheran  I  should  say  that 
a  new  wife  might  be  taken  without  putting  away  the  old, 
for  polygamy  was  practiced  by  the  patriarchs  and  Luther 
teaches  that  it  is  not  forbidden  by  the  New  Testament.” 

That  Erasmus  did  not  embrace  the  queen’s  cause  more 
warmly  is  perhaps  due  to  his  sense  of  injury  because  she 
did  not  take  more  notice  of  his  compliments.  In  a  work 
called  The  Christian  Widow ,  dedicated  to  Queen  Mary 
of  Hungary,  he  referred  to  Catharine  as  “a  woman  of 
such  learning,  piety,  prudence,  and  constancy,  that  there 
was  nothing  in  her  feminine,  nothing  not  masculine, 
except  her  sex  and  beauty,”2  and  he  took  pains  to  call 
this  passage  to  her  attention.  The  small  gift  that  he 
received  very  late  did  not  satisfy  him,  especially  when 
he  contrasted  her  indifference  with  the  autograph  letter 
sent  him  by  Queen  Mary.3  The  poor  woman  had  other 
things  to  think  of  than  Latin  adulators,  no  matter  how 
exquisitely  they  burned  their  incense  before  her. 

Just  at  this  time  the  humanist  was  in  close  communi¬ 
cation  with  Simon  Grynaeus,  a  learned  Greek  scholar 
who,  having  been  professor  at  Heidelberg  1524-29,  was 
called  in  the  latter  year  by  CEcolampadius  to  Basle  to 
replace  Erasmus.4  A  mission  to  England,  in  search  of 
Greek  manuscripts,  led  to  his  employment  by  Henry  as 
one  of  the  agents  to  collect  the  opinions  of  foreign  univer¬ 
sities  and  doctors  on  the  divorce.  Having  already  been 
in  correspondence5  with  Erasmus  on  learned  subjects,  he 

1  Burckhardt-Biedemann:  Bon.  Amerbach  und  die  Reformation ,  1894,  pp. 
238  f. 

a  LB.  v,  col.  726.  Other  compliments  in  cols.  730,  766. 

*  To  Mountjoy,  September  8,  1529,  Lond.  xxvi,  20.  LB.  ep.  1077.  To 
Mountjoy,  March  18,  1531.  Lond.  xxvi,  39;  LB.  ep.  1174. 

4  Realencyklopadie  fur  protestantise  he  Theologie  und  Kirche,  vii,  218. 

6  Simonis  Grynai  Epistola ,  ed.  W.  T.  Streuber,  1847,  epp.  1-4,  three  from 
Erasmus  to  Grynaeus  and  one  reply,  all  without  date. 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29  283 

now  took  letters  of  introduction  from  him  to  English 
friends,  but  while  there  won  the  ill  will  of  More  and  of 
Tunstall  and  generally  disgraced  himself  in  their  eyes  by 
defending  Zwingli.1 

Whether  he  solicited  Erasmus’s  opinion,  as  he  did  that 
of  many  other  divines,  is  unknown,  but  that  the  old 
scholar  was  approached  by  the  other  side  is  expressly 
told,  two  nobles  from  the  imperial  court  acting  as  inter¬ 
mediaries.  Apparently  he  tried  to  avoid  giving  them  a 
direct  answer,  telling  them  what  he  hoped  would  happen, 
not  what  divine  and  human  law  required.  Protesting 
his  loyalty  to  the  emperor,  he  denied  that  the  rumor 
that  he  approved  of  the  divorce  had  any  foundation. 
The  matter  he  thought  too  hard  for  him  to  decide.2  This 
was  his  reply  to  a  letter  from  his  Portuguese  friend, 
Damian  a  Goes,  who  had  written  to  express  his  surprise 
that  Erasmus  had  favored  the  divorce,  inasmuch  as  he 
has  heard  the  direct  opposite  from  his  correspondent’s 
own  mouth.3  A  quite  different  impression,  however,  is 
given  by  a  letter  to  another  friend,  then  at  Padua,  in 
which  the  writer  opined  that  the  king  was  justified  in 
getting  a  divorce  at  last,  as  his  course  had  been  approved 
by  so  many  doctors  and  had  been  going  on  for  eight 
years.4  At  the  same  time,  when  he  heard  the  false  rumor 
that  Henry  had  taken  back  Catharine,  though  he 
regarded  it  as  incredible,  he  hoped  it  was  true,5  and 
when  Cochlaeus,  in  1534,  wrote  against  the  divorce,  the 
humanist  applauded  him.6 

Probably  Burnet  is  wrong  in  saying  that  Erasmus 
secretly  favored  the  divorce,  but  was  afraid  to  appear  in 
the  matter  lest  he  should  offend  the  emperor.7  About 


1  Erasmus  to  Viglius  van  Zuichem,  November  8,  1533;  LB.  App.  ep.  374. 

2  To  Damian  a  Goes,  July  25,  1533;  Lond.  xvii,  19;  LB.  ep.  1253. 

3  June  20,  1533,  Forstemann-Giinther,  ep.  188. 

4  To  Viglius  Zuichem,  May  14,  1533;  LB.  App.  ep.  372. 

6  To  Olaus,  November  7,  1533;  Monumenta  diplomataria  Hungaria,  xxv, 
424. 

6  M.  Spahn:  J.  Cochlaus ,  1898,  p.  250. 

7  Burnet:  History  of  the  Reformation ,  ed.  Pocock,  1865,  i,  160. 


ERASMUS 


284 

this  time  one  of  the  humanist’s  numerous  secretaries 
wrote  a  friend  that  Henry’s  divorce  was  indefensible 
because  of  the  injury  done  to  his  daughter  and  because 
an  heir  might  have  been  adopted  with  the  consent  of 
the  people.1  The  fact  is  that  Erasmus  was  pulled  in  two 
ways:  he  loved  peace,  and  yet  he  was  bound  by  ties  to 
both  the  king  and  the  queen  of  England.  He  could 
not  help  pitying  the  latter,  while  he  saw  with  apprehen¬ 
sion  the  possibilities  of  bloodshed  latent  in  a  disputed 
succession.  He  approached  the  matter  as  far  as  possible 
from  the  practical  standpoint,  hoping  for  the  solution 
that  would  entail  least  hardship  on  all  parties.  He  there¬ 
fore  remained  non-committal,  even  when  he  wrote,  in 
1532,  a  special  treatise  on  divorce,2  intended  as  an  answer 
to  some  enemy  whom  he  designates  as  “Muzzle-mouth.” 
There  was  an  early  English  translation  of  this,  though 
the  exact  date  cannot  be  determined.3 

However  he  may  have  felt  toward  Queen  Catharine, 
Erasmus  had  no  scruple  in  making  friends  with  the 
Boleyns.  Though  it  is  hardly  likely  that  he  knew  Anne’s 
father,  Thomas  Boleyn,  Viscount  Rochford,  personally, 
he  received  a  letter  from  him  dated  November  4,  1529, 
in  which  the  nobleman  asked  him  to  explain  to  him 
the  Psalm,  “The  Lord  is  my  Shepherd,”  and  added  to 
the  Latin  of  his  secretary  in  his  own  hand  the  English 
words:  “I  pray  yow  gyff  credyt  to  thys  and  pardon  me 
that  I  wryte  not  at  thys  tyme  to  yow  myself.  Your  own 
asseurydly,  T.  Rochford.”4  Erasmus  complied,  dedicat- 

1  Gilbert  Cousin  to  Ulrich  Zasius,  son  of  the  Freiburg  professor  of  that 
name.  The  letter  is  dated  only  “ex  aedibus  Erasmicis,”  and  was  presumably 
penned,  therefore,  in  the  years  1530-35.  It  was  first  published  in  Cousin’s 
(Cognatus)  De  iis  qui  Romes  jus  dicebant  olim>  Lyons,  1559.  I  owe  this 
reference  to  Prof.  Edna  Virginia  Moffett  of  Wellesley  College. 

2  Responsio  ad  disputationem  cujusdam  Phimostomi  de  divortio,  Freiburg, 
August  19,  1532.  LB.  ix,  955  ff. 

3  The  censure  and  judgment  of  .  .  .  Erasmus:  JVhyther  dyvorsemente  betwene 
man  and  zuyfe  stondeth  with  the  lawe  of  God.  .  .  .  transl.  by  N.  Lesse,  London, 
wyd.  Jhon  Herforde  for  R.  Stoughton. 

Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  i,  174.  The  Dictionary  of  National  Biography ,  s.  v. 
Nicholas  Lesse,  puts  this  dialogue  in  1550. 

4  Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  114. 


LIFE  AT  BASLE  1521-29  285 

ing  his  Ennaratio  triplex  in  Psalmum  XXII 1  to  Rochford, 
and  later  also  his  Symboli  explanatio  sive  Catechismus.2 
For  these  he  got  a  warm  note  of  thanks  and  a  present  of 
fifty  crowns,  accompanied  by  the  further  request  for  a 
work  on  Preparation  for  Death}  Erasmus  complied  in 
this  case  also.4  Less  than  two  years  later  he  heard  from 
Chapuis  of  the  expected  execution  of  Rochford,  who 
therefore  had  a  very  practical  use  for  the  work  he  had 
asked  for.  In  the  same  letter  he  recounts  the  pitiful  tale 
of  the  demise  of  Queen  Catharine,  much  comforted,  if 
we  may  trust  the  writer,  by  the  same  book.5 

1  LB.  v;  the  dedicatory  epistle,  Lond.  xxix,  34,  is  wrongly  dated  1527. 

2  LB.  v,  1133  ff.  English  translation:  A  playne  and  godly  exposytion.  ...  of 
the  commune  Crede.  .  .  .  put  forth  by  Erasmus.  London,  Redman,  no  date 
(1533?). 

3  Rochford  to  Erasmus,  June  19,  1533.  Enthoven,  no.  109.  Cf.  letter  of 
Rochford’s  secretary,  Gerard  Phrysius,  June  8,  1533,  Forstemann-Giinther, 
no.  187. 

4  LB.  v.  1294  ff. 

5  Chapuis  to  Erasmus,  February  1,  1536.  Enthoven,  no.  145.  Catharine 
died  January  6,  1536. 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  COLLOQUIES  AND  OTHER  PEDAGOGICAL  WORKS 

OF  all  the  works  of  Erasmus  the  one  in  which  his 
own  nature  and  style  appeared  to  the  best  advan¬ 
tage,  that  which  surpassed  all  others  in  originality,  in  wit, 
in  gentle  irony,  in  exquisitely  tempered  phrase,  and  in 
maturity  of  thought  on  religious  and  social  problems,  was 
written  as  a  text-book  of  Latin  style.  The  Familiar 
Colloquies  were  intended  to  make  easy  and  pleasant  the 
once  thorny  path  of  learning  for  aspiring  youth.  They 
are  stories  in  the  form  of  conversations,  always  convey¬ 
ing,  along  with  the  necessary  exercise  in  Latin,  enough 
instruction  and  reflection  on  all  sorts  of  matters  to  make 
them  profitable  reading  for  thoughtful  minds.  The 
author’s  most  important  “sources”  were,  indeed,  his 
own  experiences.  If  he  borrowed  something  from 
Lucian,  a  plot  from  Hroswitha  and  a  tiny  bit  from  Poggio, 
far  more  he  wove  in  of  his  own  ripe  thought  on  events 
in  which  he  had  participated.1 

Like  so  many  of  its  author’s  productions,  this  was  a 
work  of  many  years,  each  issue  being  a  revision  and 
expansion  of  the  previous  one.  The  first  Colloquies  were 
written  at  Paris  in  1497  for  the  use  of  some  pupils, 
among  them  Augustine  Vincent  Caminade.2  The  author 
did  not  intend  them  for  publication,  but,  as  he  wrote  later,3 

I  dictated  some  trifles  or  other  if  anyone  wished  to  chat  after 
dinner  and,  as  Horace  says,4  to  sport  informally  by  the  fireside. 

1  See  A.  Horawitz:  “Ueber  die  Collcquia  des  Erasmus  von  Rotterdam,” 
Historisches  Taschenbuch ,  6te  Folge,  6tes  Jahrgang,  1887,  pp.  53-122. 

2  On  whom  see  Appendix. 

3  To  the  Reader,  Louvain,  January  1,  1519.  Preface  to  the  revised  edition 
of  the  F amiliarium  Colloquiorum  Formula,  1519.  Allen,  ep.  909. 

4  Satires,  ii,  1.  73. 


286 


THE  COLLOQUIES  287 

There  were  some  formulas  of  everyday  intercourse  and  again  some 
convivial  conversations.  .  .  .  These  trifles  Augustine  Caminade 
sucked  up  like  an  insatiable  Laverna,  and  from  them  all  patched  up 
a  book  like  EEsop’s  crow;  or  rather  he  concocted  them  just  as  a  cook 
mixes  up  many  scraps  to  make  a  broth.  He  added  titles  and  names 
of  persons  from  his  own  invention,  so  that  the  ass  in  the  lion’s  skin 
might  sometimes  betray  himself.  For  it  is  not  as  easy  to  write  Latin 
trifles  as  some  think. 

Twenty  years  later  Beatus  Rhenanus  got  hold  of  these 
exercises  and  published  them,  without  the  author’s 
knowledge,  at  Basle  in  November,  1 5 1 8.1  The  work  had 
a  rapid  sale,  and  several  new  editions  were  called  for. 
Erasmus,  at  first  indignant  that  his  rough  notes  should 
be  printed  in  such  poor  form,  found  it  better  to  revise 
and  acknowledge  the  work  than  to  disowm  it  altogether. 
A  new  edition  was  published  by  Froben  on  January  1, 
1519,  now  bearing  the  title,  Formulas  of  Familiar  Con¬ 
versations ,  by  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam ,  useful  not  only  for 
polishing  a  boy's  Speech  but  for  building  his  Character; 
this  was  revised  and  much  enlarged  in  an  edition  of  1522 
dedicated  to  young  Erasmius  Froben.  The  title  was 
changed  to  Familiar  Conversations  in  1524,  and  at  this, 
and  at  many  other  times,  until  March,  1533,  further  ad¬ 
ditions  were  made.2 

The  earliest  colloquies  are  the  easiest  and  most  formal, 
dealing  with  such  subjects  as  eating  and  drinking,  games 
of  ball,  and  matters  of  everyday  life.  All  manner  of 
proper  salutations  are  catalogued,  from  the  most  distant 
to  such  affectionate  titles  as  “my  life,  my  delight,  my 
little  heart.”  Such  instructions  in  manners  are  given  as 
that  it  is  polite  to  salute  people  when  they  sneeze  or 
cough,  and  to  wish  them  good  luck,  but  not  when  their 
bowels  rumble  or  when  they  are  engaged  in  discharging 
the  duties  of  nature.  The  interlocutors  are  Caminade, 


1  Preface  to  N.  and  C.  Stallberger,  dated  November  22,  1518,  in  Briefzvechsel 
des  B tains  Rhenanus ,  p.  122. 

2  Bibliotheca  Belgica,  Erasmus:  Colloquia,  1903-07.  Allen,  i,  p.  304.  Dedi¬ 
cations  to  Erasmius  Froben,  August  1,  1523,  Lond.  xxix,  18;  August  1,  1524. 
LB.  i,  627.  The  text  of  the  Colloquies,  ibid,  629  ff. 


288 


ERASMUS 


James  Voecht,  a  school-teacher  of  Schlettstadt  named 
Sapidus,  Erasmus,  Erasmius  Froben,  Gaspar,  Bernard, 
and  others.  The  first  two  names  date  back  to  the  Paris 
days;  the  others  were  added  later.  The  conversations 
show  that  Erasmus  joined  his  pupils  in  games  of  tennis, 
conversed  with  them  on  serious  topics,  and  joked  them 
on  everything;  one  pupil,  for  example,  was  good- 
naturedly  ridiculed  for  having  a  nose  big  enough  to  be 
used  as  a  bellows,  a  harpoon,  or  a  candle  extinguisher. 

In  the  edition  of  March,  1522,  Erasmus  added  much, 
mainly  on  religion.  The  tendency  of  it  is  all  liberal,  to 
emphasize  the  life  of  the  spirit  rather  than  dependence 
on  ceremonies.  In  a  long  Religious  Symposium ,  an  inter¬ 
locutor  called  Eusebius  says:  “I  have  put  Jesus  instead 
of  the  foul  Priapus  as  protector  of  my  garden.”1  This 
free  manner  of  speaking,  and  the  juxtaposition  of  the 
two  names,  shocked  the  conservative.  In  a  later  edition, 
also  of  1522,  Erasmus  added  An  Apotheosis  of  John 
Reuchliny  who  died  on  June  20,  1522.  In  this  the  good 
man  is  represented  as  taken  to  heaven,  whereas  an  ob¬ 
scurantist,  called  “the  Camel” — probably  the  Carmelite 
Egmond — is  satirized. 

In  the  next  edition,  of  August,  1523,  Erasmus  added 
much,  chiefly  on  love  and  marriage.  One  dialogue  rep¬ 
resents  a  girl  rejecting  an  infatuated  suitor;  another 
shows  the  young  man  warning  the  girl  of  the  dangers  of 
the  cloister;  and  a  third  exhibits  her  repentance  at 
having  taken  the  veil.  A  fourth  dialogue  sets  forth  the 
inconveniences  of  marriage.  Various  anecdotes  of  the 
writer’s  friends  are  inserted,  including  one  of  Thomas 
More’s  early  married  life.2  One  of  the  interlocutors, 
Xanthippe,  perhaps  stands  for  the  shrewish  second  wife 
of  the  same  man.  Nor  did  Erasmus  scruple  to  add,  in 
this  textbook  for  boys,  a  realistic  dialogue  between  a 
youth  and  a  harlot,  in  which  the  former  tries  to  convert 
the  girl  to  a  better  life,  and  tells  her  that  he  himself  has 

1  LB.  i,  673 E. 

*  Quoted  above,  p.  83  ff. 


THE  COLLOQUIES  289 

kept  pure,  even  at  Rome,  by  reading  the  Greek  Testa¬ 
ment  of  Erasmus.  The  author  probably  took  the  plot 
for  this  story  from  the  tenth-century  dramatist  and  nun, 
Hroswitha.1  At  any  rate  it  illustrates  the  freedom  with 
which  such  matters  were  then  spoken  of.  Virtue  was  then 
supposed  to  lie  not  in  ignorance,  but  in  knowledge. 

Another  conversation  added  at  this  time  contrasts  the 
French  and  German  inns,  very  much  in  favor  of  the 
former.  Still  another  dialogue,  between  Antony  and 
Adolph,  doubtless  Dutch  friends  of  the  writer,  describes 
a  shipwreck  in  the  following  manner:2 

Adolph:  The  night  was  dark  and  in  the  topmast  stood  a  helmeted 
sailor  as  a  lookout  for  land.  To  him  a  fiery  sphere  began  to  stick,3 
which,  coming  alone  is  considered  an  evil  portent,  though  if  two  come 
together  it  is  thought  to  be  lucky.  Antiquity  believed  them  to  be 
Castor  and  Pollux. 

Antony:  What  have  they  to  do  with  sailors  when  one  was  a 
horseman,  the  other  a  boxer? 

Adolph:  Thus  it  seemed  good  to  the  poets.  The  skipper,  who  sat 
at  the  rudder,  said :  “  Comrade  ”  (for  thus  sailors  address  one  another), 
“do  you  see  the  fellow  sticking  to  your  side?”  “I  see,”  said  he,  “I 
pray  that  it  may  be  lucky.”  Soon  the  fiery  globe  fell  down  through 
the  ropes  and  rolled  to  the  skipper. 

Antony:  Was  he  not  paralyzed  with  fear? 

Adolph:  Sailors  are  accustomed  to  monsters.  Then  after  a  short 
pause  the  globe  rolled  around  the  edges  of  the  boat  and  disappeared 
through  the  hatchways.  At  midday  a  tempest  began  to  gather.  Have 
you  ever  seen  the  Alps  ? 

Antony:  Yes. 

Adolph:  They  are  warts  compared  with  these  waves.  When  we 
were  borne  up  we  could  touch  the  moon  with  our  fingers;  when  down 
it  seemed  as  if  the  earth  yawned  and  we  were  going  straight  through 
to  Tartarus. 

Antony:  Madmen  to  trust  the  sea! 

1  LB.  i,  718  ff.  Hrotsvitha  Gandesheimensis  Comcedias  sex  ed.  J.  Bendixen 
1862,  no.  5,  “Phaphnutius.”  That  Hroswitha  was  really  known  and  studied 
at  this  time  is  proved  by  a  picture  of  Albrecht  Differ,  dated  1501,  showing 
the  nun  presenting  her  book  to  the  Emperor  Otto.  The  woodcut  is  repro¬ 
duced  in  Klassiker  der  Kunst,  Diirer,  p.  190.  Charles  Reade  has  used  the 
Erasmian  colloquy  very  effectively  in  his  novel,  The  Cloister  and  the  Hearth. 

2  LB.  i,  712  ff.  See  above,  p.  32. 

3  Called  “St.  Elmo’s  fire,”  or  “the  fire  of  St.  Erasmus.”  See  Encyclopedia 
Britannica.  But  did  the  name  not  originate  with  this  colloquy? 


290 


ERASMUS 


Adolph:  As  the  sailors  strove  with  the  tempest  in  vain  the 
skipper,  all  pallid,  came  up  to  us. 

Antony:  His  pallor  presages  a  great  disaster. 

Adolph:  “Friends,”  said  he,  “I  am  no  longer  master  of  my  ship; 
the  winds  have  conquered;  it  remains  to  put  our  trust  in  God  and 
prepare  for  the  end.” 

Antony:  A  truly  Scythian  speech! 

Adolph:  “But  first,”  said  he,  “the  ship  must  be  lightened. 
Necessity  knows  no  law.  We  must  save  our  lives  at  the  expense  of 
our  goods  rather  than  perish  with  them.”  The  truth  prevailed  and 
some  boxes  of  valuable  goods  were  thrown  into  the  sea. 

Antony:  This  was  indeed  to  hazard  a  throw! 

Adolph:  There  was  a  certain  Italian  present  who  had  been  on  an 
embassy  to  the  king  of  Scotland;  he  had  a  box  full  of  silver  and  gold, 
cloth  and  silk. 

Antony:  He  would  not  settle  with  the  sea? 

Adolph:  No.  He  wished  either  to  perish  with  his  goods  or  to  be 
saved  with  them.  So  he  disputed  the  order. 

Antony:  What  did  the  skipper  say? 

Adolph:  “We  would  allow  you  to  perish  alone  with  your  goods,” 
said  he,  “but  it  is  not  right  that  we  should  all  be  jeoparded  for  the 
sake  of  your  box.” 

Antony:  A  nautical  oration. 

Adolph:  So  the  Italian  also  threw  over  his  things,  cursing  by 
heaven  and  hell  because  he  had  trusted  so  barbarous  an  element. 

Adolph:  Soon  the  winds,  by  no  means  appeased  by  our  gifts, 
tore  away  the  ropes  and  sails. 

Antony:  Oh,  calamity! 

Adolph:  Then  again  the  captain  approached  us. 

Antony:  To  make  a  speech? 

Adolph:  He  saluted  us.  “Friends,”  said  he,  “the  time  has  come 
for  each  one  to  commend  himself  to  God  and  to  prepare  for  death.” 
Asked  by  some  who  were  not  ignorant  of  navigation  how  long  he 
thought  he  could  save  the  ship,  he  said  he  could  promise  nothing,  but 
not  above  three  hours. 

Antony:  This  speech  was  harder  than  the  former. 

Adolph:  Then  he  commanded  all  the  ropes  and  the  mast,  as  far 
down  as  the  base  in  which  it  was  standing,  to  be  cut  away  and  thrown, 
spars  and  all,  into  the  sea. 

Antony:  Why? 

Adolph:  Because  the  sail,  being  torn,  was  no  use,  but  only  a 
burden;  the  only  hope  was  in  the  rudder. 

Antony:  What  in  the  meantime  did  the  passengers  do? 

Adolph:  There  you  would  have  seen  a  wretched  spectacle;  the 
sailors  singing  Salve  Regina ,  praying  to  the  Virgin  Mother,  calling 
her  the  Star  of  the  Sea,  the  Queen  of  Heaven,  the  Mistress  of  the 


THE  COLLOQUIES  291 

World,  the  Port  of  Safety,  flattering  her  with  titles  of  which  the 
Bible  knows  nothing. 

Antony:  What  had  she  to  do  with  the  sea  on  which  I  think  she 
never  sailed? 

Adolph:  Formerly  Venus  took  care  of  sailors,  for  she  was  believed 
to  have  been  born  from  the  sea;  when  she  ceased  doing  so  the  Virgin 
Mother  succeeded  the  mother  not  a  virgin. 

Antony:  You  jest. 

Adolph:  Some,  falling  down  on  the  deck,  adored  the  sea,  pouring 
oil  upon  the  waves,  flattering  it  not  otherwise  than  we  might  an 
angry  prince. 

Antony:  What  did  they  say? 

Adolph:  “O  most  clement  sea,  O  most  generous  sea,  O  most  rich 
sea,  O  most  beautiful  sea,  be  gentle  and  save  us!”  Thus  many  sang 
to  the  deaf  sea. 

Antony:  Ridiculous  superstition.  What  then? 

Adolph:  Some  only  vomited;  most  made  vows.  There  was  an 
Englishman  present  who  promised  mountains  of  gold  to  the  Virgin  of 
Walsingham  if  he  came  alive  to  shore.  Others  promised  much  to  the 
wood  of  the  cross  in  a  certain  place;  others  to  the  same  wood  in 
another  place.  The  same  was  done  for  the  Virgin  Mary  who  rules  in 
many  places;  they  think  the  vow  void  unless  they  mention  the 
place. 

Antony:  Ridiculous!  As  though  the  saints  did  not  inhabit  heaven. 

Adolph:  Some  promised  to  be  Carthusians.  One  vowed  to  go  to 
St.  James  of  Compostella  with  bare  feet  and  head  and  with  his  body 
covered  with  an  iron  corselet,  begging  his  bread. 

Antony:  Did  no  one  mention  Christopher? 

Adolph:  One  man  did,  whom  I  heard  not  without  a  laugh.  With 
a  loud  voice,  lest  he  be  not  heard,  he  vowed  to  St.  Christopher  in  the 
high  church  at  Paris,  a  wax  statue,  or  rather  mountain,  as  big  as 
himself.  While  he  was  shouting  this  as  loud  as  he  could,  over  and 
over,  a  friend  of  his  nudged  him  with  his  elbow  and  said:  “Take  care 
what  you  promise;  even  if  you  sell  all  that  you  have  you  could  not 
pay  that  vow.”  Then  he,  in  a  low  voice  lest  Christopher  should  hear: 
“Hold  your  tongue,  you  fool.  Do  you  think  I  mean  what  I  say? 
If  ever  I  reach  land  I  won’t  give  him  a  tallow  candle.” 

Antony:  Stupid  fellow!  I  suspect  he  was  a  Hollander. 

Adolph:  No,  a  Zeelander. 

Antony:  I  am  surprised  that  none  thought  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
who  himself  was  once  a  sailor  and  shipwrecked.  He,  not  ignorant  of 
evil,  would  know  how  to  succor  the  miserable. 

Adolph:  No  one  mentioned  Paul. 

Antony:  Did  the  passengers  pray  meanwhile? 

Adolph:  Earnestly.  One  sang  the  Salve  Regina  and  another  the 
creed.  Some  had  special  prayers,  like  charms,  against  perils. 


292 


ERASMUS 


Antony:  How  religious  affliction  makes  men!  In  prosperity  neither 
God  nor  saint  comes  into  our  mind.  What  did  you  do?  Did  you  make 
vows  to  anyone? 

Adolph:  No. 

Antony:  Why? 

Adolph:  Because  I  do  not  bargain  with  the  saints.  What  else  is 
it  than  a  regular  contract:  I  give  if  you  give;  I  will  give  wax  if  I 
swim  out,  or  I  will  go  to  Rome  if  you  save  me. 

Antony:  But  did  not  you  implore  the  protection  of  any  saint? 

Adolph:  Not  even  that. 

Antony:  But  why? 

Adolph:  Because  the  sky  is  spacious.  If  I  commended  my  safety 
to  some  saint,  say  Peter  who  stands  at  the  gate  and  would  therefore 
hear  it  first,  before  he  had  obtained  an  audience  with  God  and 
explained  my  cause  I  should  have  perished. 

Antony:  What,  then,  did  you  do? 

Adolph:  I  went  straight  to  the  Father  himself  with  the  Lord’s 
prayer.  None  of  the  saints  would  hear  me  quicker  or  more  willingly 
give  what  I  asked. 

Antony:  But  did  not  your  conscience  prevent  you?  Did  you  dare 
to  approach  the  Father  whom  you  had  offended  with  so  many  sins? 

Adolph:  Frankly,  conscience  did  deter  me  somewhat.  But  I  soon 
took  courage  thinking:  No  Father  is  so  angry  with  his  son  that  if 
he  saw  him  in  peril  of  drowning  would  not  pull  him  out  by  his  hair. 
Among  all  the  passengers  none  was  more  tranquil  than  a  woman 
nursing  a  baby  in  her  lap. 

Antony:  What  did  she  do? 

Adolph:  Alone  she  neither  cried  out  nor  wept  nor  vowed,  but  only 
embraced  her  son  and  silently  prayed.  Meantime  the  ship  was 
suddenly  smitten  with  a  wave.  The  captain,  fearing  she  would  burst 
in  pieces,  bound  her  together  with  ropes  from  prow  to  poop. 

Antony:  Miserable  defense! 

Adolph:  Then  a  certain  old  priest  whose  name  was  Adam  threw 
away  his  clothes,  even  his  hose  and  boots,  all  except  his  shirt,  and 
commanded  that  everyone  should  prepare  to  swim.  Standing  in  the 
midst  of  the  ship  he  gave  us  an  exhortation  from  Gerson;  that  homily 
on  the  use  of  confession,  and  he  bade  all  to  prepare  for  either  life  or 
death.  A  certain  Dominican  was  also  present  to  whom  those  who 
wished  confessed. 

Antony:  What  did  you  do? 

Adolph:  Seeing  all  the  tumult,  I  confessed  silently  to  God, 
condemning  my  own  righteousness  and  imploring  his  mercy. 

Antony:  Where  would  you  have  gone  had  you  perished? 

Adolph:  This  I  committed  to  God’s  judgment,  for  I  would  not 
be  my  own  judge,  but  I  had  good  hope.  Meanwhile  a  weeping  sailor 
came  to  us.  Let  each  one,  said  he,  prepare  himself,  for  the  ship  will 


293 


THE  COLLOQUIES 

not  last  a  quarter  of  an  hour;  it  is  leaking  fast.  Shortly  after  that  he 
announced  to  us  that  he  saw  the  spire  of  a  church,  and  bade  us  pray 
to  the  saint  to  whom  it  was  dedicated.  All  fell  down  to  adore  the 
unknown  saint. 

Antony:  Had  you  addressed  him  by  name  perhaps  he  would  have 
heard  you. 

Adolph:  His  name  was  unknown.  In  the  meantime  the  captain 
guided  the  ship,  as  best  he  could,  to  the  shore.  .  .  .  and  as  we 
approached,  the  inhabitants  saw  us,  rushed  to  the  shore  and,  fastening 
shirts  and  hats  to  lances,  waved  them  to  us,  inviting  us  to  shore  and 
signifying  that  they  deplored  our  misfortune.  .  .  .  The  sailors  let 
down  a  skiff  into  the  sea,  into  which  all  tried  to  throw  themselves; 
but  the  sailors  with  great  tumult  shouted  that  it  would  not  hold  all, 
and  that  the  passengers  should  get  what  they  could  to  swim  with. 
One  seized  an  oar,  another  a  pole,  another  a  tub,  another  a  bucket, 
another  a  plank,  and  thus  committed  themselves  to  the  waves.  .  .  . 
I  almost  perished,  .  .  .  but  with  the  help  of  a  companion  pulled 
out  the  lower  part  of  the  mast  and  floated  on  it.  .  .  .  But  only 
seven  were  saved  of  fifty-eight.  .  .  .  On  land  we  experienced  the 
incredible  humanity  of  the  people,  who  with  great  alacrity  supplied 
us  with  lodging,  fire,  food,  clothes,  and  means  of  transport. 

Antony:  What  people  was  it? 

Adolph:  The  Dutch. 

Antony:  No  people  are  more  humane,  though  they  are  surrounded 
with  savage  nations.  I  hope  you  will  not  tempt  Neptune  again. 

Adolph:  Not  if  God  give  me  a  sound  mind. 

Antony:  I  prefer  to  hear  such  tales  rather  than  experience  them. 

This  colloquy  excellently  illustrates  the  manner  in 
which  liberal  ideas  were  instilled  into  the  minds  of  the 
readers.  One  by  one  the  author  took  up  most  of  the 
popular  abuses  in  order  to  hold  them  up  to  ridicule. 
The  conversation  entitled,  “The  Inquisition  of  Faith, ” 
minimizes  the  Church’s  power  of  excommunication,  show¬ 
ing  that  only  God’s  fulminations  strike  the  soul  and 
that  nothing  is  necessary  to  salvation  but  the  Apostles’ 
Creed.1  A  very  mild  satire  on  the  “poor  rich  men,” 
i.e.j  the  begging  friars,  holds  up  the  ideal  of  men  rich  only 
in  spiritual  gifts.  The  worship  of  the  saints  comes  in 
for  constant  derision.  One  of  the  boldest  passages 
is  the  following,  purporting  to  be  a  letter  from  the 


1  LB.  i,  728.  March,  1524. 


294  ERASMUS 

Virgin  Mary  to  Glaucoplutus,  a  pseudonym  for  Ulrich 
Zwingli:1 

Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  to  Glaucoplutus,  greeting.  By  following 
Luther  in  persuading  men  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  invoke  the  saints, 
you  have  done  me  a  great  favor,  for  hitherto  I  have  been  almost 
killed  by  the  evil  petitions  of  mortals.  All  things  were  begged  from 
me  alone,  as  though  my  son  were  always  an  infant,  because  he  is  so 
painted  in  my  bosom,  as  if  he  still  waited  on  my  nod  and  feared  to 
deny  me  anything  lest  I  should  refuse  him  the  breast.  Sometimes 
my  worshipers  sought  from  the  Virgin  what  no  decent  youth  would 
ask  from  a  bawd,  things  which  I  am  ashamed  to  put  in  writing.  One 
day  a  merchant  about  to  sail  to  Spain  committed  to  my  care  the 
chastity  of  his  mistress.  A  nun,  having  cast  aside  the  veil  and  pre¬ 
pared  for  flight,  recommended  to  me  the  reputation  she  was  about  to 
prostitute.  A  wicked  soldier  going  to  slaughter  cried  out:  Blessed 
Virgin,  give  me  the  Spolia  opima ;  the  spoils  of  war!  A  dicer  cries: 
Help  me,  saint,  and  part  of  the  gain  shall  be  yours.  If  the  dice  fall 
badly  he  insults  and  curses  me  for  not  favoring  his  vice.  She  who 
lives  on  the  wages  of  prostitution  cries  out:  Give  me  a  rich  haul!  If 
I  deny  anything,  they  say  then  I  am  not  the  mother  of  mercy. 
The  prayers  of  some  others  are  rather  foolish  than  impious.  The 
maiden  prays,  Mary,  give  me  a  rich  and  handsome  husband;  the 
matron,  Give  me  pretty  little  cubs;  the  pregnant  woman,  Grant 
me  an  easy  birth;  the  old  woman,  Let  me  live  without  coughing  and 
dryness;  the  old  man,  Let  me  be  young  again;  the  philosopher, 
Help  me  solve  the  insoluble;  the  priest,  Give  me  a  rich  benefice; 
the  bishop,  Save  my  church;  the  sailor.  Give  me  a  prosperous 
journey;  the  perfect  cries:  Show  me  our  son  before  I  die;  the 
courtier,  Give  me  a  chance  to  confess  on  my  deathbed.  .  .  . 
And  yet  with  all  this  enormous  business  to  attend  to  I  get  no  honor. 
Formerly  I  was  hailed  Queen  of  Heaven  and  Lady  of  the  World,  now 
I  hear  only  a  few  Ave  Marias!  ...  I  wanted  you  to  know  this  so 
as  to  get  your  advice,  for  I  have  taken  the  matter  much  to  heart. 
From  my  stone  temple,  Basle,2  August  i,  1524.  I  the  Virgin  sign 
this  with  my  stone  hand. 

Other  dialogues  ridicule  the  superstitions  of  spiritism,3 


1  Erasmus  uses  Glaucoplutus  as  the  Greek  equivalent  of  Ulrich  both  here 
and  elsewhere  of  Ulrich  Zasius,  as  if  the  name  was  derived  from  words 
meaning  “owl”  and  “rich.”  Zwingli  had  recently  published  a  sermon 
against  Mariolatry,  “Eine  Predigt  von  der  ewigen  reinen  Magd  Maria,” 
September  17,  1522.  Z.  W.  i,  385  ff. 

2  Apud  Rauracos,  a  Latin  name  for  Basle. 

3  Exorcismus  sive  spectrum ,  LB.  i,  749,  cf.  above  p.  80  f. 


295 


THE  COLLOQUIES 

or  of  alchemy,1  of  fasting,2  or  of  pilgrimages.3  It  is  not 
surprising  that  some  of  them  should  have  given  offense  to 
old-fashioned  piety.  Luther,  for  instance,  though  quoted, 
sided  with  the  conservatives,  and,  in  one  of  his  late, 
harsh  judgments,  selects  the  colloquy  on  Mariolatry  as 
one  that  mocks  all  religion.4  This  censure  is,  of  course, 
wrong.  What  Erasmus  mocks  is  not  religion,  but  the 
false  application  of  it.  In  proof  of  this,  one  more  selection 
must  be  given,  which,  with  the  lightest  and  most 
delicious  wit,  reveals  a  real  grasp  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  speakers  are  Cannius  and 
Polyphemus,  the  latter  being  the  name  given  by 
Erasmus  to  a  youth  who  served  him  partly  as  a  domestic, 
partly  as  an  amanuensis. 

Cannius:  What  is  Polyphemus  hunting  for  here? 

Polyphemus:  You  ask  me  what  I  am  hunting  without  dogs  or 
gun? 

Cannius:  Perhaps  some  hamadryad? 

Polyphemus:  You  are  a  good  guesser.  See,  here  is  my  hunting  net. 

Cannius:  What  do  I  see?  Bacchus  masquerading  in  the  spoils  of 
a  lion,  Polyphemus  with  a  book!  To  see  the  hinges,  clasps  and  brass 
bands,  one  might  call  it  a  book  of  war. 

Polyphemus:  Open  it. 

Cannius:  It  is  pretty,  but  you  haven’t  decorated  it  enough  yet. 

Polyphemus:  What  is  the  matter  with  it. 

Cannius:  You  ought  to  have  put  your  coat  of  arms  in  it. 

Polyphemus:  What  do  you  mean. 

Cannius:  The  head  of  Silenus  looking  out  of  a  barrel.  But  what 
does  the  book  treat  of,  the  art  of  drinking? 

Polyphemus:  Be  careful  not  to  blaspheme  without  knowing  it. 

Cannius:  What  then,  is  it  something  holy? 

Polyphemus:  The  holiest  thing  in  the  world,  the  Gospel. 

Cannius:  Great  Hercules!  What  is  there  in  common  between 
Polyphemus  and  the  Gospel. 

Polyphemus:  What  is  there  in  common  between  a  Christian  and 
Christ? 

Cannius:  I  can’t  answer.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  a  halbard  would 

1  LB.  i,  742. 

2  LB.  i,  787,  cf.  above,  p.  266. 

3  LB.  i,  774,  cf.  spura,  p.  70  ff. 

4  Tischrcden,  ed.  Forstemann  &  Bindseil,  iii,  410-41 2,  422. 


ERASMUS 


296 

suit  you  better  than  this  book,  for  when  I  see  a  man  like  you  I  take 
him  for  a  pirate,  or,  if  he  is  in  the  woods,  for  an  assassin. 

Polyphemus:  But  the  Gospel  recommends  us  not  to  judge  by 
appearances.  Sometimes  a  gray  cowl  hides  an  inhuman  heart,  and 
sometimes  a  cropped  head,  bristling  mustaches,  menacing  eyebrows, 
ferocious  eyes,  and  a  military  costume,  hide  an  evangelic  soul.  .  .  . 

Cannius:  Don’t  play  the  sophist  with  me.  A  man  doesn’t  carry 
the  Gospel  in  his  heart  unless  he  loves  it,  and  he  can’t  love  it  deeply 
without  showing  it  in  his  acts. 

Polyphemus:  You  are  too  subtle  for  me. 

Cannius:  I’ll  explain  to  you  more  simply.  If  you  carried  on  your 
shoulder  a  bottle  of  French  wine,  would  it  be  anything  else  than  a 
weight? 

Polyphemus:  Certainly  not. 

Cannius:  Suppose  you  took  some  in  your  mouth  and  spit  it  out 
again  ? 

Polyphemus:  That  would  do  no  good,  but  I  assure  you  that  is 
not  my  custom. 

Cannius:  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  according  to  your  custom,  you 
drank  some  of  it? 

Polyphemus:  I  should  like  nothing  better. 

Cannius:  It  would  warm  your  body,  flush  your  face,  and  give 
you  a  happy  expression. 

Polyphemus:  Yes,  indeed. 

Cannius:  The  same  with  the  Gospel.  If  it  circulates  in  the  veins 
of  the  mind  it  changes  the  entire  nature  of  a  man. 

Polyphemus:  Don’t  you  think  I  live  as  the  Gospel  commands? 

Cannius:  No  one  can  tell  better  than  yourself. 

Polyphemus:  If  I  could  only  obey  the  Gospel  the  way  I  want  to 
— with  a  battle  ax! 

Cannius:  If  some  one  called  you  a  liar  and  a  good-for-nothing, 
what  would  you  do? 

Polyphemus:  What  would  I  do?  Hit  him  in  the  eye. 

Cannius:  And  if  somebody  hit  you? 

Polyphemus:  I’d  break  his  neck  for  him. 

Cannius:  And  yet  your  book  there  bids  you  answer  insults  with 
blessings,  and  if  one  smite  you  on  the  right  cheek  to  turn  to  him 
the  left. 

Polyphemus:  I  did  read  that — but  I  forgot  it.  .  .  . 

Cannius:  Well  then,  how  can  you  show  me  that  you  love  the 
Gospel? 

Polyphemus:  I’ll  tell  you.  A  certain  Franciscan  keeps  reviling 
the  New  Testament  of  Erasmus  in  his  sermons.  Well,  one  day  I 
called  on  him  in  private,  seized  him  by  the  hair  with  my  left  hand, 
and  punished  him  with  my  right.  I  gave  him  so  sound  a  drubbing 
that  I  reduced  his  whole  face  to  a  mere  jelly.  What  do  you  say  to 


297 


THE  COLLOQUIES 

that?  Isn’t  that  supporting  the  Gospel?  And  then,  by  way  of 
absolution  for  his  sins,  I  took  this  book  I  have  here  and  gave  him 
three  resounding  whacks  on  the  head  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Cannius:  That  is  certainly  evangelic,  defending  the  Gospel  by 
the  Gospel. 

Polyphemus:  I  can  tell  you  something  else.  There  was  another 
man  of  the  same  order  who  broke  loose  against  Erasmus  without  the 
least  restraint.  Well,  inflamed  with  evangelic  zeal,  I  forced  the 
man  to  beg  pardon  on  his  knees,  and  to  confess  that  all  he  had  said 
was  at  the  instigation  of  the  devil.  All  the  while  I  had  my  halbard 
brandished  over  my  head.  I  must  have  looked  like  angry  Mars. 
Several  people  can  tell  you  that  this  is  true. 

Cannius:  I  am  astonished  that  he  survived.  But  really  it  is  time 
you  were  turning  from  a  brute  beast  into  a  man. 

Polyphemus:  You  are  right,  for  all  the  prophets  of  this  time  say 
that  the  end  of  the  world  is  at  hand. 

Cannius:  Another  reason  for  making  haste.  .  .  .  But  why  do 
your  prophets  think  that  the  end  is  coming? 

Polyphemus:  Because  they  say  men  are  living  now  as  they  did 
just  before  the  deluge;  they  eat,  drink,  marry  and  are  given  in 
marriage,  have  mistresses,  buy,  sell,  borrow  and  lend  at  interest, 
and  build.  Kings  make  wars,  priests  devote  themselves  to  getting 
money,  theologians  invent  syllogisms,  monks  gad  about,  the  common 
people  rebel,  Erasmus  writes  colloquies — in  short,  all  possible  curses 
exist  at  once:  hunger,  thirst,  brigandage,  war,  pestilence,  sedition, 
lack  of  good.  Doesn’t  that  all  portend  the  last  judgment? 

But  superstition  was  not  the  only  foible  satirized.  One 
colloquy  denounced  war;  another  hit  off  the  absurdities 
of  the  grammarians;  a  third  was  a  plea  for  eugenics,  at 
least  to  the  extent  of  forbidding  the  diseased  to  marry.1 
Others  treated  of  feminism,  of  horse-cheats,  of  miserli¬ 
ness,  of  false  nobility,  of  the  love  of  glory.  In  fact,  every 
human,  or  at  least  every  humanistic  interest,  is  taken  up, 
exposed  to  the  free  play  of  mind,  and  moralized. 

Naturally,  the  free  tone  of  the  Colloquies ,  and  their 
anti-ecclesiastical  tendency,  aroused  bitter  criticism.  In 
the  first  acknowledged  edition,  that  of  March,  1522, 
Nicholas  of  Egmond,  the  conservative  of  Louvain, 
detected  four  passages  savoring  of  heresy,  one  on  vows, 


1 ' Aya/xog  ydaog  sive  conjugium  impar ,  LB.  i,  826. 


ERASMUS 


298 

one  on  indulgences,  one  of  confession  and  pilgrimages, 
one  on  fasting.  The  author  had  described  a  man  who 
confessed  having  made,  while  drunk,  vows  to  go  on 
pilgrimages  to  Rome  and  Compostella  and  who  had 
carried  them  out,  although  he  was  persuaded  that  they 
were  foolish  and  that  his  wife  and  children  suffered  by 
his  absence.  Another  passage  attacked  was  this:  “I 
hate  a  snake  less  than  a  fish.  And  I  have  often  wondered 
why,  when  the  Gospel  freed  us  from  the  Mosaic  law,  we 
believe  that  God  has  put  this  more  than  Jewish  load 
[of  fasting]  upon  Christian  shoulders.”1  In  the  next 
edition,  of  the  same  year,  Erasmus  modified  these 
censures,  and  also  deprecated  the  action  about  to  be 
taken  against  him  by  the  university  of  Paris.  This  was 
long  delayed,  for,  though  the  university  drew  up  a 
Determination  on  the  Familiar  Colloquies  of  Erasmus  in 
May,  1526,  it  was  not  published  until  1531,  the  author 
answering  in  the  following  year.2 

Meantime  Erasmus  was  busy  defending  his  work 
against  other  critics.  In  the  edition  of  June,  1526,  he 
added  a  Letter  to  the  Reader  “on  the  utility  of  the 
Colloquies,”3  moved  thereto  by  the  slander  that  waxed 
hot  against  every  man  and  every  book.  In  his  book,  he 
protests,  he  has  for  the  first  time  aimed  to  make  the 
road  to  learning  a  pleasant  one,  for  he  is  convinced  that 
play  is  the  best  teacher.  Throughout,  however,  he  has 
pointed  morals,  for  example  he  has  called  attention  to 
the  evils  of  pilgrimages,  which  no  one  familiar  with  the 
disastrous  fate  of  relatives  left  at  home  can  deny.  He 
has  condemned,  not  indulgences,  but  the  abuse  of  them. 
It  is  nonsense  to  say  that  he  has  ridiculed  religion.  As 
for  the  charge  of  lasciviousness  in  the  dialogue  between 
the  youth  and  the  harlot,  he  answers  that  the  critics  who, 
strain  at  his  gnat  swallow  the  camels  of  Plautus  and 


1  On  this  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  s.  v.  Colloquia ,  ed.  of  March,  1522. 

1  D’Argentre:  Collectio  judiciorum,  II,  53-74.  P.  Imbart  de  la  Tour:  Les 
Origines  de  la  Reforme,  iii,  19 1 4,  p.  268. 

3  Lond.  xxix,  19,  May  19,  1526. 


299 


THE  COLLOQUIES 

Poggio.  The  obscene  word  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
shameless  girl  is  said  to  have  been  a  common  one  even 
in  the  speech  of  honest  matrons.1  If  anyone  prefers  he 
may  write  another  word.2  But  save  for  this  the  author 
claims  that  he  has  made  even  the  stews  chaste.3 

In  like  tone  Erasmus  assured  his  private  friends  that 
his  work  had  in  it  nothing  indecent,  impious,  or  seditious, 
but  that  it  had,  on  the  contrary,  profited  many.4 

To  the  author  the  most  trying  ordeal  came  not  from 
the  camp  of  his  enemies,  numerous  though  these  were, 
but  from  a  probably  well-meant  attempt  to  expurgate 
the  offensive  matter,  in  an  unauthorized  edition  by 
Lambert  Campester,  a  Saxon  theologian  of  Louvain. 
This  gentleman,  described  as  “of  squinting  eye,  but  of 
yet  more  squinting  mind,  .  .  .  corrected,  that  is  to  say, 
depraved,  some  passages  about  monks,  vows,  pilgrimages, 
and  indulgences,”  and  changed  the  names  Paris  and 
France  to  London  and  England,  regardless  of  the  sense; 
and  he  also  forged  an  introduction  in  barbarous  Latin, 
purporting  to  come  from  the  author.  He  then  published 
the  hateful  work  at  Paris.5 

But  the  narrowly  religious  men  in  both  camps  con¬ 
tinued  to  protest  against  the  Colloquies.  Ambrosius 
Pelargus,  a  shining  light  of  Freiburg,  said  that  all  the 
youth  had  been  corrupted  by  that  work.6  Cuthbert 
Tunstall,  Bishop  of  London,  was  offended  by  them.7  In 
1549  one  J.  Morisotus,  did  his  best  to  have  the  Colloquies 

1  Those  acquainted  with  the  literature  of  the  time  will  see  that  this  is  not 
much  of  an  exaggeration.  Erasmus  tells  in  one  place  (LB.  v.  717)  of  a  matron 
who  slipped  on  the  steps  of  St.  Gudule  at  Brussels  and  was  pained  into  uttering 
the  same  word  he  has  here  put  into  the  mouth  of  Lucretia. 

*  “Mea  voluptas”  instead  of  “mea  mentula.” 

3 1  cannot  wholly  agree  with  this;  there  are  a  few  passages  in  the  Collo¬ 
quies — e.g.,  in  the  “  Puerpera,”  unfit  for  boys’  eyes. 

4  To  Wolsey,  April  25,  1526,  Lond.  xxi,  33,  LB.  ep.  810.  To  John  the  Bishop 
(Fisher),  September  1,  1528,  Lond.  xxii,  30;  LB.  ep.  974. 

5  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations ,  Allen,  i,  p.  9  f.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana:  Collo- 
quia,  i,  364. 

6  N.  Paulus:  Die  Deutschen  Dominikaner  im  Kampfe  gegen  Luther ,  1903, 
p.  206. 

7  Forstemann-Giinther,  ep.  108. 


3°° 


ERASMUS 


superseded  by  a  new  work  of  the  same  name,  written  by 
himself.1  Dionysius  de  Zannettinis,  Bishop  of  Milopo- 
tamos  and  delegate  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  described 
them  as  very  dangerous  and  as  likely  to  make  boys 
mock  all  religion.2  They  were  censured  by  a  papal 
commision  of  cardinals  in  1537  and  finally  put  on  the 
Index,  with  the  rest  of  their  writer’s  works.3  They  were 
forbidden  by  the  inquisition  in  Franche-Comte  in  1 53  5-4 
The  Reformers,  too,  though  they  sanctioned  the  use  of 
the  Colloquies — perhaps  exscinding  some  of  the  freer 
passages — in  their  schools5  in  1528,  finally  turned  against 
them.  “On  my  deathbed,”  said  Luther,  I  shall  forbid 
my  sons  to  read  Erasmus’s  Colloquies .  .  .  .  He  is  much 
worse  than  Lucian,  mocking  all  things  under  the  guise 
of  holiness.”6  The  great  Protestant  scholar,  Joseph 
Scaliger,  thought  there  were  many  faults  in  the  Latin 
of  the  Colloquies  J 

All  these  attacks,  however,  did  not  greatly  injure  the 
popularity  of  the  work,  but  rather  advertised  it.  When 
Vesuvius  wrote  from  France,  on  February  8,  1527, 8  say¬ 
ing  that  the  censure  of  the  Sorbonne  did  not  alienate 
the  esteem  of  good  men,  his  opinion  was  fully  borne  out 
by  the  fact  that  the  mere  rumor  of  the  coming  condemna¬ 
tion  induced  a  Parisian  bookseller  to  hurry  through  the 
press  an  edition  of  twenty-four  thousand  copies.9  In 
fact,  the  sales  were  enormous,  and  would  be  considered 
so  even  in  modern  times.10  During  the  eighteen  years 

1  A.  Bohmer:  “Aus  dem  Kampfe  gegen  die  Colloquia  Familiaria  des 
Erasmus,”  Archiv  fur  Kulturgeschichte ,  ix,  1911. 

2  G.  Buschbell:  Reformation  und  Inquisition  in  Italien  um  die  Mitte  des 
XVI  ]  ahrhunderts ,  1910,  pp.  48  ff. 

3  Preserved  Smith:  The  Age  of  the  Reformation ,  1920,  p.  420  ff.  Mansi: 
Conciliorum  1$  Decretorum  Collectio  Amplissima ,  Supplement  V,  545. 

4  L.  Febvre:  Notes  &  Documents  sur  la  Reforme  et  V Inquisition  en  Franche- 
Comte,  1912,  p.  178. 

6  “Instruction  to  Visitors  of  Schools,”  Luthers  Werke,  Weimar,  xxvi,  174  f. 

6  Preserved  Smith:  Life  and  Letters  of  Luther ,2  1914,  p.  212. 

7  Scaliger  ana,  1695,  p.  140. 

8  Enthoven,  no.  47. 

9  Cambridge  Modern  History,  i,  571. 

10  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  for  list  of  editions  and  translations. 


30i 


THE  COLLOQUIES 

from  their  first  publication  to  the  author’s  death  about 
a  hundred  impressions  were  called  for,  and  the  popularity 
of  the  work  rather  increased  than  diminished  during  the 
next  two  centuries.  This  astounding  success,  which 
easily  broke  all  previous  records  and  was  only  surpassed, 
among  contemporary  works,  by  the  vernacular  Bibles, 
may  be  partly  accounted  for  by  the  international  repu¬ 
tation  of  the  author,  all  civilized  countries  contributing 
to  swell  the  sales.  Another  consideration  was  that  the 
Colloquies  were  used  as  a  text-book,  and  a  successful 
text-book  has  always  been  one  of  the  most  vendible  forms 
of  writing.  There  were  also  many  translations,  one  of 
the  earliest  being  into  Spanish.1  Separate  dialogues  were 
also  put  into  the  vernacular:  Clement  Marot,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  translating  into  French  verse  the  dialogues 
entitled  “The  Abbot  and  the  Learned  Lady”  and  “The 
Girl  Who  Did  Not  Want  to  Marry.”2 

The  influence  of  the  Erasmian  Colloquies  on  the 
thought  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  proportional  to 
their  popularity.  Other  works,  indeed,  such  as  The 
Utopia ,  The  Prince ,  The  Revolutions  of  the  Heavenly 
Spheres ,  and  The  Babylonian  Captivity  of  the  Churchy 
may  have  ultimately  done  more  to  revolutionize  the 
world’s  thought,  but  none  of  them  made  such  a  wide 
and  immediate  impression  upon  the  minds  of  youths  at 
the  most  impressionable  age.  The  spread  of  the  Refor¬ 
mation  in  particular,  and  of  ideas  still  more  liberal  for 
that  day  and  generation,  was  due  more  to  this  text-book 
of  style  than  to  any  other  one  volume.  Among  the 
Anabaptists  and  among  the  Arminians,  in  Franck  and  in 
Acontius,  the  Erasmian  liberalism  obtained  a  full  evalu¬ 
ation;  in  Rabelais  and  Montaigne  it  reached  a  still  higher 
plane  of  expression. 

Among  the  many  educational  treatises  of  all  sorts 
penned  by  the  scholar  of  Rotterdam,  two  of  the  earliest 

1  Bonilla  y  San  Martin,  in  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii,  1907,  pp.  435  ff.  Origines 
de  la  Novela  por  D.  M.  Menendez  y  Pelayo,  Tomo  iv,  1915. 

2  (Euvres  de  Clement  Marot,  ed.  1731,  Tome  iii,  pp.  116  ff. 


302 


ERASMUS 


were  the  Method  of  Study 1  and  The  Double  Supply  of 
Words  and  Matter.2  In  them  the  author  expressed  his 
preference  for  the  study  of  language  to  “that  elusive 
maiden  Dialectic,”  the  love  of  the  schoolmen,  emphasized 
the  importance  of  vocabulary,  gave  examples  of  how  to 
say  the  same  thing  in  different  ways,  and  recommended 
the  study  of  Latin  and  Greek  together  for  their  mutual 
help. 

Other  commentaries,  text-books,  and  treatises  on  peda¬ 
gogy  poured  from  his  pen.  Such  was  his  edition  of  The 
Distichs  of  Cato ,  some  moral  couplets  which  had  a  great 
vogue  in  the  Middle  Ages,  when  they  were  supposed  to 
have  been  written  by  Cato  the  Censor,  though  believed 
now  to  have  originated  in  the  third  or  fourth  century.3 
Such  was  the  Greek  grammar  of  Gaza  translated  by  Eras¬ 
mus  in  1 516. 4  Such  was  the  Latin  grammar,  composed 
jointly  by  Lyly  and  Erasmus  for  Colet’s  school,  which  was 
for  centuries  the  standard  Latin  grammar,  being  the  one 
used  by  Shakespeare,  recommended  by  Doctor  Johnson,5 
and  the  basis  of  the  Eton  Latin  grammar  now  in  use.6 

This  book  made  an  immediate  success;  Sapidus,  a 
well-known  German  schoolmaster,  wrote  Erasmus  how 
delighted  the  boys  were  with  his  text-book.7 8  In  his  reply3 


1  Translated  by  Woodward:  Erasmus  on  the  Aim  and  Method  of  Education, 
162-78.  LB.  i,  517.  First  edition,  1511. 

2  LB.  i,  3  ff  Cf.  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations,  Allen,  i,  p.  9.  First  edition,  15 1 1 ; 
first  authentic  edition,  1512.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  i,  p.  65.  Dedication  to 
Colet,  April  29,  1512,  Allen,  ep.  260.  Simon  Sinapius  lectured  on  the  De 
Copia  at  Wittenberg  in  1540.  G.  Buchwald:  Zur  Wittenberger  Stadt-  und 
JJniversitatsgeschichte ,  1893,  p.  150. 

3  Preface,  to  Neve,  August  1,  1514.  Allen,  ep.  289.  Luther  often  quoted 
from  Cato. 

4  LB.  i,  1 16  ff.  Allen,  ep.  428.  To  Caesarius,  1516. 

6  Boswell’s  Life  of  Johnson ,  ed.  B.  Hill,  i,  99. 

6  LB,  i,  167  ff.  Preface,  Basle,  July  30,  1515.  Allen,  ep.  341.  Colet  wrote 
an  English  preface  to  this,  in  which  he  says  “Wherefore  I  pray  you,  al  lytel 
babys,  al  lytel  children,  lerne  gladly  this  lytel  treatyse  and  commend  it 
dylygently  unto  your  memoryes.  Trustynge  of  this  begynnynge  that  ye  shal 
procede  and  growe  to  parfyt  lyterature  and  come  at  last  to  be  gret  clarkes.”  A 
Feuillerat:  John  Lyly,  1910,  p.  6,  note  4. 

7  Allen,  ep.  353. 

8  Allen,  ep.  364;  Nichols,  ep.  366. 


THE  COLLOQUIES  303 

Erasmus  expressed  a  very  high  regard  for  the  calling  of 
schoolmaster: 

I  admit  that  your  vocation  is  laborious,  but  I  utterly  deny  that  it 
is  tragic  or  deplorable,  as  you  call  it.  To  be  a  schoolmaster  is  next 
to  being  a  king.  Do  you  count  it  a  mean  employment  to  imbue  the 
minds  of  your  fellow  citizens  in  their  earliest  years  with  the  best 
literature  and  with  the  love  of  Christ  and  to  return  them  to  their 
country  honest  and  virtuous  men?  In  the  opinion  of  fools  it  is  a 
humble  task,  but  in  fact  it  is  the  noblest  of  occupations.  Even  among 
the  heathen  it  was  always  a  noble  thing  to  deserve  well  of  tlfe  state, 
and  no  one  serves  it  better  than  the  moulder  of  raw  boys. 

Erasmus  had  a  good  deal  of  experience  in  teaching, 
though  he  never  remained  for  long  a  regular  professor. 
He  gave  lectures  at  Cambridge,  and  he  had  taken  private 
pupils  at  Paris  and  elsewhere.  In  this  line  he  was  highly 
successful,  not  only  making  his  pupils  devoted  to  him¬ 
self,  but  producing  really  cultured  men.  At  Louvain 
he  took  a  lively  interest  in  the  university,  especially  in 
the  foundation,  by  means  of  a  bequest  from  his  friend 
Busleiden,  of  the  Collegium  Trilingue,  to  be  devoted,  as 
its  name  indicates,  to  the  cultivation  of  the  three  ancient 
tongues.1  Very  likely  the  plan  owed  much  to  his  advice, 
as  its  execution  was  due  to  his  co-operation.  As  Hebrew 
professor  he  secured  the  baptized  Jew,  Matthew  Adrian. 
The  plan  of  the  instruction  was  set  forth  in  a  letter  to 
John  Lascar,  asking  for  a  recommendation  of  a  Greek 
teacher:2 

In  this  college  shall  be  taught  publicly  and  gratis  Hebrew,  Latin, 
and  Greek.  A  sufficiently  splendid  salary  of  seventy  ducats,3  which 
may  be  increased  according  to  the  value  of  the  person,  is  assigned  to 
each  professor.  The  chairs  of  Latin  and  Hebrew  are  already  provided 
for;  many  are  competing  for  the  chair  of  Greek.  It  has  always 
seemed  to  me  that  a  native  Greek  should  be  secured  so  that  the  pupils 
may  get  a  correct  pronunciation  at  once. 

1  Allen,  i,  p.  434. 

2  April  26,  1518.  Allen,  ep.  836. 

3  A  ducat  was  worth  $2.25,  or  nine  shillings,  intrinsically;  the  salary  would 
therefore  be  $157.50,  or  £31-10-0,  per  annum,  at  a  time  when  money  had  ten 
times  the  purchasing  power  that  it  has  now.  Salaries  in  German  and  English 
universities  at  this  time  averaged  somewhat  higher.  See  Preserved  Smith: 
The  Age  of  the  Reformation ,  1920,  p.  471. 


304 


ERASMUS 


As  Erasmus  has  spoken  of  getting  a  Greek  to  secure 
the  proper  pronunciation  of  the  language,  it  is  interesting 
to  note  that  he  wrote  what  was  long  regarded  as  the 
standard  treatise  on  the  right  pronunciation  of  Latin  and 
Greek.  Incidentally,  the  work  is  interesting  as  showing 
the  author’s  acquaintance  with  various  vernaculars,  for 
he  continually  quotes  words  in  English,  French,  Dutch, 
and  German.  Erasmus  was  well  aware  that  the  Romans 
sounded  their  consonants  differently,  in  some  cases,  from 
modern  usage.  For  example,  he  shows  that  in  Latin  c 
should  always  be  sounded  k.  It  is  probable  that  Erasmus 
did  not  follow  his  own  precept  in  this  regard.  A  parallel 
case  is  that  of  De  Quincey,  who  remarks  in  one  of  his 
essays  that  c  is  sounded  like  k,  but  would  certainly  never 
have  been  guilty  of  saying  Kikero.  Milton  also  touches 
this  subject  in  his  Tractate  on  Education ,  but  contents 
himself  with  observing  that  the  vowels  should  be  sounded 
as  near  the  Italian  as  possible.  The  main  purpose  of 
Erasmus’s  work  was  to  protest  against  the  “iotacism” 
in  Greek — that  is,  the  pronunciation  of  several  different 
vowels  and  diphthongs  like  the  Italian  i.  This  is  now, 
and  was  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  pronunciation  of 
the  modern  Greeks,  but  the  Dutch  scholar  rightly  main¬ 
tained  that  the  ancients  must  have  differentiated.  His 
method  became  known  as  the  Erasmian,  opposed  to  the 
Reuchlinian,  which  wTas  followed  by  Melanchthon.  The 
former  finally  prevailed,1  for  it  was  adopted  on  the  Con¬ 
tinent  by  H.  Estienne,  Beza,  and  Ramus,  was  introduced 
at  Cambridge  by  Thomas  Smith  and  John  Cheke  in  1536, 

1  R.  C.  Jebb,  in  Cam.  Mod.  Hist,  i,  581.  Ingram  Bywater:  The  Erasmian 
Pronunciation  of  Greek  and  Its  Predecessors ,  L.  Aleander,  A.  Manutius,  An¬ 
tonio  of  Lebrixa.  London,  1908.  This  little  monograph  shows  that,  though  the 
story  told  by  Rescius  of  Erasmus’s  writing  the  Pronunciation  to  get  credit  for 
himself  which  belonged  to  others,  is  false;  yet  he  had  predecessors,  first 
Antonio  of  Lebrixa  (1444-1522)  who  wrote  the  Descriptiones  Latina ,  then 
Manutius,  who  wrote  De  literis  Gracis,  1508,  following  Antonio,  and  Aleander, 
who  w’rote  on  Pronunciation ,  in  15 12,  following  Manutius.  Cf.  also  T.  Papa- 
Demetrakopoulos:  La  Tradition  ancienne  et  les  partisans  d’ Erasme  (1903)  and 
other  works  cited  in  the  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  iii,  p.  45.  Sandys:  History  of 
Classical  Scholarship,  ii,  232. 


3°S 


THE  COLLOQUIES 

and,  after  the  Reuchlinian  pronunciation  had  been 
brought  back  in  1 542  by  Gardiner,  was  permanently 
restored  in  1558. 

Not  only  to  the  practical  work  of  writing  text-books 
and  grammars,  but  to  the  exposition  of  pedagogical 
theory,  Erasmus  contributed  much.1  It  is  true  that  he 
was  not  very  original  in  method,  borrowing  largely  from 
Plato,  Aristotle,  Plutarch,  Quintilian,  Mapheus  Vegius, 
and  the  German  humanists.  With  the  classical  enthu¬ 
siasm  of  the  age  he  was  thoroughly  in  sympathy,  as  he 
was  with  the  highly  aristocratic  tendency  of  the  Renais¬ 
sance.2  The  training  of  an  elite  was  his  constant  pre¬ 
occupation  and  he  saw  that  there  was  no  education  like 
converse  with  men  of  character  and  cultivation.  “Live 
with  learned  men,”  he  advised,  “hear  them  submissively 
and  with  honor,  study  them,  and  never  think  yourself 
learned.”3  Logically,  therefore,  the  tutorial  system  was 
postulated,  at  least  as  the  ideal.  This  system,  of  course, 
is  only  open  to  the  wealthy,  and  it  is  of  the  education  of 
these  that  Erasmus  always  seems  to  be  thinking.  Lie 
had  no  democratic  instincts;  the  immense  services  ren¬ 
dered  to  the  common-school  education  of  the  people  by 
Luther  would  not  have  appealed  to  him.  His  thoughts 
were  absorbed  in  excogitating  the  rational  training  for 
a  leader,  a  prince,  a  prelate,  or  at  least  an  aristocrat  like 
More  or  Pirckheimer.  The  chief,  indeed  almost  the  only, 
subjects  to  be  taught  were  the  classics.  This  idea,  which 
seems  so  inadequate  to  us,  was  in  reality  an  advance 
over  the  mediaeval  curriculum;  the  only  subjects  then 
taught,  except  a  little  barbarous  Latin,  had  been  dialectic 
and  Aristotelian  philosophy.  Compared  to  this  dry 


1  J.  M.  Hofer:  Die  Stellung  des  D.  Erasmus  und  des  J.  L.  Fives  zur  Padagogik 
des  Quintilian ,  Erlangen  Dissertation,  1910.  D.  Reichling:  Ausgewahlte 
pedagogische  Schriften  des  D.  Erasmus.  Uebersetzung  und  Erlduterungen ,  1896. 
W .  H.  Woodward:  Erasmus  concerning  the  Aim  and  Method  of  Education ,  1094. 

2  Well  brought  out  by  Imbart  de  la  Tour:  Origines  de  la  Reforme ,  i,  556. 

3  Letter  to  Vadian,  September  27,  1520.  Vadianische  Brief sammlung,  hg. 
von  E.  Arbenz  und  H.  Wartmann,  1890  ff.  Seven  parts  and  seven  supplements, 
ii,  no.  219. 


ERASMUS 


306 

course  the  classics  offered  real  wealth  of  material.  Never¬ 
theless,  it  is  fortunate  that  Erasmus’s  plan  did  not 
obtain  exclusive  dominance. 

Erasmus  saw  that  the  earliest  education  must  come 
from  the  mother,  and  laid  down  the  sound  principle  that 
care  of  the  body  is  the  foundation  of  all.  Work  should 
begin  by  way  of  play,  a  tutor  (whose  qualifications  are 
set  almost  impossibly  high)  should  be  secured  when  the 
pupil  is  five  or  six.  If  the  boys  are  sent  to  school — which, 
however,  is  deprecated — lay  schools  are  to  be  given  the 
preference  to  religious  ones. 

The  text-books  edited  by  Erasmus  allow  us  to  see 
exactly  the  method  he  preferred.  A  glance  at  his  De 
Constructione  (Lyly’s  grammar  of  1515)  shows  a  consid¬ 
erable  lack  of  logical  arrangement.  This  may  be  partly 
intended;  at  any  rate,  reading  was  more  relied  on  than 
formal  rules.  The  first  books  to  be  read  should  be  the 
Proverbs  and  Gospels  in  Latin,  after  them  a  Latin 
version  of  Plutarch’s  Apothegms  and  Moralia.  iEsop  is 
to  be  the  first  author  read  in  Greek.  It  is  plain  that 
the  moral  element  is  preponderant  in  this  choice,  the 
predilection  for  sententious  precepts  being  especially 
marked.  It  is  noticeable  that  Luther  shared  this  taste 
to  the  full;  iEsop  and  Dionysius  Cato,  both  edited  by 
Erasmus,  being  among  his  favorite  books.  Following 
Quintilian,  Erasmus  then  picks  out  to  be  read  among  the 
Greeks  Lucian,  Demosthenes,  Aristophanes,  Homer,  and 
Euripides;  among  the  Latins,  Terence,  Plautus,  Vergil, 
Horace,  Cicero,  Caesar,  and  Sallust.  He  excludes 
mediaeval  Latin,  especially  the  romances  of  Arthur  and 
Launcelot. 

The  author  is  to  be  read  first  for  the  grammar,  then 
for  the  style,  and  finally  for  the  moral  instruction.  The 
method  followed  was  that  recommended  by  Milton  a 
century  later,  the  teacher  to  construe  the  text  to  the 
boys  one  day  and  have  them  repeat  it  to  him  on  the 
morrow.  Writing  was,  of  course,  studied,  especially 
prose,  first  the  oratorical  style,  then  the  epistolary,  and 


THE  COLLOQUIES  307 

then  the  historical.  Poetry  and  Greek  composition  were 
also  recommended. 

It  is  astonishing  to  us  that  so  little  time  is  given  to 
anything  but  language.  All  other  subjects  were  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  taken  in  incidentally  to  philology.  History 
was  a  by-product  of  Livy,  for  example,  and  natural 
science  of  Pliny.  Indeed,  it  sometimes  seems  as  if 
knowledge  of  any  facts  at  all  was  mainly  valued  for  the 
sake  of  literary  allusion.  Unlike  Luther,  Erasmus  put  a 
very  slight  value  on  music.  He  apparently  had  little 
taste  for  it,  sometimes  mentioning  the  congregational 
singing  in  the  reformed  churches  as  one  of  their  repellent 
features.  Some  emphasis  was  laid  on  deportment;  in 
1526  Erasmus  wrote  a  primer  of  Civility  for  Boys ,  telling 
them  how  to  carry  themselves,  how  to  dress,  how  to 
behave  at  church,  at  table,  in  company,  at  play,  and  in 
the  dormitory.1 

In  advocating  the  education  of  women  Erasmus  was 
ahead  of  most  of  his  contemporaries.  He  labored  to 
refute  the  common  but  erroneous  opinion  that  literature 
is  neither  useful  to  women  nor  consistent  with  their  ' 
reputation  and  innocence.2  One  of  the  Colloquies 3  on  the 
subject  shows  an  abbot,  who  at  first  maintained  that 
books  took  from  the  weaker  sex  what  little  brains  they 
had,  finally  convinced  by  a  blue-stocking  that  the 
learned  women  of  Italy,  Spain,  England,  and  Germany 
had  profited  mightily  by  their  studies.  Both  here  and 
elsewhere  Erasmus  alleged  the  examples  of  Sir  Thomas 
More’s  daughters,  and  those  of  Pirckheimer  and  Blaurer. 
With  More’s  eldest  daughter,  Margaret  Roper,  he  was 
indeed  in  occasional  epistolary  correspondence.  In  her 
nineteenth  year  she  translated  into  English  one  of  his 
tracts  under  the  title  A  Devout  Treatise  upon  the  Pater 
Noster ,4  and  he  repaid  the  compliment  by  dedicating 

XLB.  1,1033. 

2  To  Bude,  Anderlecht,  1521.  Allen,  ep.  1233. 

3  Abbatis  et  eruditae ,  LB.  i,  744. 

4  F.  Wiener:  Naogeorgus  in  England,  1913,  p.  7.  The  Devout  Treatise  on 
the  Pater  Noster  was  published  by  W.  de  Worde  in  1524. 


308  ERASMUS 

to  her  his  Commentary  on  Prudentius ’  Hymn  to  the 
Nativity.1 

The  influence  of  Erasmus  was  doubtless  great,  but  it 
was  not  revolutionary,  because  of  the  perfect  accord 
between  him  and  the  liberal  wing  of  contemporary 
thought.  To  distil  the  lessons  of  the  classics  and  of  the 
early  Christian  writings,  and  then  to  instil  them  into 
the  minds  of  youth,  seemed  to  that  and  to  many  sub¬ 
sequent  generations  the  highest  wisdom.  The  principal 
pedagogical  writers  of  the  next  generation  followed  the 
humanist’s  recommendations  exactly.  What  do  we  read 
in  Ascham,  and  in  Ramus,  and  in  Eliot,  and  in  Melanch- 
thon,  and  in  Vives,  and  in  Starkey,2  but  variations 
upon  the  tune  composed  by  the  scholar  of  Rotterdam? 
What  new  matter  did  Milton,  in  the  next  century,  have 
to  recommend?  Indeed,  the  humanistic  reform  of  the 
sixteenth  century  formed  the  basis  of  all  education  until 
the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth,  when  living  languages 
and  new  sciences  began  to  take  the  place  of  the  classics. 
Nowadays  the  old  authors  so  familiar  to  our  fathers 
have  become  little  more  than  ghosts  of  their  former 
selves;  and,  like  the  shades  seen  by  Odysseus  in  the 
underworld,  they  revive  to  life  and  warmth  only  when 
they  drink  blood — that  of  the  unappreciative  youths 
and  maidens  still  sacrificed  to  them  in  our  schools. 

Venerate  the  classics  though  he  did,  there  was  a  depth 
of  servility  in  their  adulation  to  which  Erasmus  would 
not  descend.  He  never  tired  of  ridiculing  those  pedants 
who  would  speak  nothing  but  the  purest  Ciceronian 
style.  In  the  Folly  he  told  of  a  preacher  whose  art 
completely  swamped  his  matter.  Elsewhere3  he  satirized 
those  who  spoke  of  Christ  the  Redeemer  of  the  world  as 

1  LB.  v,  1337;  Lond.  xxix,  65.  December  25,  1524. 

2  T.  Starkey:  A  Dialogue  between  Cardinal  Pole  and  Thomas  Lupset ,  ed. 
J.  M.  Couper,  1878,  p.  210  ff.  An  imaginary  dialogue  written  in  the  time  of 
Henry  VIII. 

3  Letter  to  Francis  Vergera,  professor  of  Greek  at  Alcala,  October  13,  1527; 
Lond.  xx,  15;  LB.  ep.  899.  Similar  expressions  in  a  letter  to  Maldonato, 
March  30,  1527.  Revue  Hispanique ,  xvii,  1907,  p.  530. 


309 


THE  COLLOQUIES 

“Jupiter  optimus  maximus,”  and  of  the  Apostles  as 
“conscript  fathers,”  as  well  as  those  who  preferred  Ponta- 
nus  to  Augustine  and  Jerome,  and  who  placed  the  elo¬ 
quence  of  Cicero  above  that  of  Jesus.  That  Erasmus’s 
satire  did  not  overshoot  the  mark  is  proved  by  the 
letters  written  by  the  papal  secretary  Bembo,  in  which, 
in  order  to  avoid  neologisms,  he  refers  to  Christ  as 
“Minerva  sprung  from  the  head  of  Jove,”  and  to  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  “the  breath  of  the  celestial  zephyr.”1 

Erasmus  not  only  declared  that  he  would  prefer  Christ 
to  ten  Ciceros,  but  he  asserted  that  even  were  he  able  to 
attain  Tully’s  style  he  should  prefer  one  more  solid,  more 
concise,  more  nervous,  less  finished,  and  more  masculine.2 
In  thus  deprecating  the  idolatry  of  the  humanists’  demi¬ 
god,  he  had  the  example  of  Valla,  who,  with  his  usual 
independence,  preferred  Quintilian.3  With  the  purpose 
of  urging  his  ideas  still  further  Erasmus  published,  in 
February,  1528,  a  dialogue  called  the  Ciceronianus ,4  at 
first  incorporated  with  the  Colloquies ,  but  later  printed 
in  separate  form.  This  lively  work,  written,  as  Gibbon 
says,  with  the  same  humor  as  Pascal’s  Lettres  Provinciates, 
satirizes  the  pedants  who,  “by  a  wave  of  the  Ciceronian 
wand,  call  up  a  land  of  make-believe,  full  of  senates  and 
consuls,  colonies  and  allies,  Quirites  and  Caesars,”  and 
defends,  as  the  subtitle  indicates,  a  better  method  of 
writing  Latin.  The  interlocutors  are  Nosoponus  the 
“Morbid  Toiler”  for  style,  Bulephorus  the  “Counsellor,” 
and  Hypologus  the  “Arbiter.”  Nosoponus  is  the  perfect 
Ciceronian,  who  boasts  that  “for  seven  years  he  has 
touched  nothing  except  Ciceronian  books,  refraining 
from  others  as  religiously  as  the  Carthusians  refrain  from 

1  Kurtz:  History  of  the  Church,  English  translation,  i,  503. 

2  In  the  letter  to  Vergera,  Lond.  xx,  15;  LB.  ep.  899. 

3  On  Petrarch’s  idolatry  of  Cicero  see  Robinson  and  Rolfe:  Petrarch ,  1914, 
passim. 

4  LB.  i,  971.  Dedicated  to  J.  Vlatten,  February  2,  1528.  Translated  by 
Izora  Scott,  with  an  introduction  by  Paul  Monroe,  1908.  A  critical  text  has 
been  edited  by  J.  C.  Schonberger,  Augsburg,  1919;  a  commentary  is  expected 
from  the  same. 


310 


ERASMUS 


flesh,  lest  somewhere  in  his  writings  some  foreign  phrase 
should  creep  in  and  dull,  as  it  were,  the  splendor  of 
Ciceronian  speech.”  Drawn  out  by  the  ironical  sympathy 
of  his  companions,  he  then  tells  how,  with  enormous 
labor,  he  has  compiled  three  lexicons,  in  one  of  which 
he  has  set  down  all  the  words  used  by  Cicero,  in  another 
all  his  phrases,  and  in  a  third  all  the  metrical  feet  used 
by  him  in  beginning  or  ending  a  period.  So  rigorous  is 
his  standard  that  he  will  employ  only  those  forms  of 
inflection  found  in  Tully;  thus,  if  amo  is  used  by  him, 
but  not  amamus,  the  former  is  taken  and  the  latter  left. 

Bulephorus,  then  abandoning  his  pretense  of  agree¬ 
ment,  and  adopting  the  Socratic  method,  forces  from 
Nosoponus  the  admission  that  in  particular  points  and 
manners  other  writers  are  superior  to  Cicero.  His 
advice,  therefore,  for  the  cultivation  of  style,  is  to  follow 
the  example  of  the  painter  Zeuxis,  who,  when  he  made  a 
picture  of  Helen,  did  not  use  as  a  model  the  most  beautiful 
woman,  but  chose  what  was  most  comely  from  several 
women.  Thus,  if  we  imitate  Cicero  in  part,  we  can  also 
learn  much  from  the  other  great  writers  of  Latin  prose. 
Furthermore,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  speak  in  Cicero’s 
vocabulary  of  things  of  which  he  knew  nothing,  and  the 
attempt  to  do  so  lands  us  in  absurdity.  Why  should  we 
call  God  “Jove,”  Christ  “Apollo,”  the  Virgin  “  Diana,”  the 
college  of  cardinals  “conscript  fathers,”  an  oecumenical 
council  “the  Senate  and  People  of  the  Christian  Republic,” 
and  adopt  other  awkward  circumlocutions  for  such  words 
as  baptism,  eucharist,  excommunication,  and  apostles  ?  In 
fine,  continues  Bulephorus,  as  present  conditions  differ 
widely  in  religion,  government,  laws,  customs,  occupa¬ 
tions,  and  in  the  habits  of  men’s  minds,  it  is  absurd  to 
try  to  compress  them  all  into  the  compass  of  an  outworn 
speech.  Bulephorus  then  passes  in  review  all  the  great 
humanists,  from  the  time  of  Petrarch,  to  whom  he 
credits  the  reflowering  of  eloquence,  and  shows  that  none 
of  them  are  truly  Ciceronian;  not  Biondo  nor  Boccaccio 
nor  Filelfo  nor  Pico  della  Mirandola  in  Italy,  not  Bude 


THE  COLLOQUIES  31 1 

nor  Lefevre  d’fitaples  nor  Jean  de  Pins  in  France,  not 
Erasmus  nor  Melanchthon  in  Germany,  nor  any  of  the 
English  scholars.  There  is,  indeed,  one,  Christopher  de 
Longueil,  who  might  claim  the  title  of  Ciceronian,  for 
even  in  writing  against  Luther  he  avoided  the  word 
“fides”  in  the  sense  of  Christian  faith,  and  used 
“persuasio”  instead. 

That  the  sensible  advice  on  style  tendered  in  this 
Dialogue  was  much  needed  is  proved  by  the  storm  it 
raised.  Men  who  had  in  sober  earnest  advised  aspiring 
stylists  to  read  nothing  but  Cicero  for  two  years  on  end 
could  not  but  wince;1  and,  though  Erasmus  had  paid 
many  compliments  to  his  contemporaries  while  passing 
their  writings  in  review,  certain  Frenchmen  were  deeply 
incensed  by  his  ridicule  of  Longueil,2  and  by  his  mention¬ 
ing,  in  the  same  breath  and  as  if  on  the  same  level,  the 
great  scholar  Bude  and  the  printer  Badius.  Some  Ital¬ 
ians,  too,  who  saw  Bembo  in  Nosoponus,  dubbed  Erasmus 
“Porrophagus”  on  account  of  his  frequent  use  of  the 
word  “porro,”  and  otherwise  ridiculed  his  style.3 

The  attack  was  formally  opened  by  an  Italian  physi¬ 
cian  at  Agen  on  the  Garonne,  known  to  letters  as  Julius 
Caesar  Scaliger.  He  had  been  born,  in  1484,  at  Riva  on 
the  Lago  di  Garda,  and  was  convinced  that  he  sprang 
from  the  family  of  Della  Scala,  lords  of  Verona.  “  What 
is  more  ancient,”  he  boasts,  “more  famous,  greater,  more 
glorious,  than  the  race  of  Scaliger,  which  in  antiquity 
surpasses  all  the  Theban  offspring  of  the  dragon’s  teeth, 
all  the  Arcadians,  though  called  ‘older  than  the  moon,’ 
the  Athenian  autochthones,  the  Latin  aborigines — in  fact, 
all  fable  and  all  memory?”4  He  says  he  had  been  a 


1  Vives  describes  such  persons  to  Erasmus,  October  i,  1523;  Vivis  Opera 
1792,  vii,  p.  no;  LB.  ep.  990. 

2  E.  Rodocanachi:  Rome  au  Temps  de  Jules  II  et  de  Leon  X ,  1912,  p.  134,  on 
Longueil,  quoting  his  letters.  Longueil  had  died  in  1522. 

3  R.  C.  Christie:  Etienne  Dolet,  1899,  p.  197. 

4 /.  C.  Scaligeri  Epistolce,  Toulouse,  1620,  ep.  13,  to  Ferron.  On  Scaliger 
further  see  J.  E.  Sandys:  History  of  Classical  Scholarship ,  ii,  1908,  p.  177; 
Mark  Pattison,  Essays ,  i,  1889,  pp.  132  ff. 


312 


ERASMUS 


soldier,  present  at  five  pitched  battles,  and  distinguish¬ 
ing  himself  with  a  valor  and  generalship  unsurpassed — - 
though  the  details  he  gives  of  these  battles  are  sometimes 
contradicted  by  authentic  histories.  When  he  came  to 
Agen  in  1526  he  was  still  unaccountably  obscure;  but, 
burning  to  distinguish  himself  in  letters,  he  saw  the 
chance  to  do  so  when  he  read  the  Dialogue  of  Erasmus. 
Borrowing  it  from  his  friend,  L.  Claudius,  in  1529,1  he 
answered  it  in  three  days,  and  at  once  sent  off  several 
manuscript  copies  to  the  various  colleges  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Paris.  Though  it  was  dedicated,  in  flattering 
terms,  to  those  “Excellent  Youths,”  as  to  the  defenders 
of  letters  and  of  the  Gallic  name,  both  of  which,  the  writer 
avers,  had  been  trampled  upon  by  Erasmus,  it  was  not 
received  by  them  with  the  least  favor.  Some  of  the  stu¬ 
dents  at  the  College  of  Navarre2  stole  the  copies,  and 
others,  the  author  asserts,  plotted  to  murder  him.  A  copy, 
he  says,  was  sent  to  Erasmus,  who  forthwith  wrote  to  his 
friends  at  Paris  begging  them  by  all  that  was  sacred  not 
to  let  the  work  be  published.  In  reality,  Scaliger  thinks, 
Erasmus  should  have  been  grateful  to  him  for  calling 
the  old  man  back  to  reason.3  After  much  delay,  the  work 
was  published  with  the  help  of  Beda,4  and  appeared  with  a 
preface  dated  March  15, 1 531,  falsely  asserting,  in  order  to 
excuse  the  lateness  of  the  answer,  that  the  author  had  re¬ 
ceived  the  Ciceronian  Dialogue  only  six  months  previously.5 

The  orator  takes  the  position  that  Erasmus  had 
assailed  not  only  Cicero’s  style,  but  his  character  and 
ability,6  as  well  as  the  French  and  Italian  nations.  To  the 


1  Scaligeri  epistolcz ,  ep.  II,  to  Sevinus,  December  13,  1529. 

2  Scaligeri  epistolcz ,  no.  1  ff. 

3  Scaligeri  Epistolce ,  No.  12,  to  A.  Ferron,  February  5  (1532?). 

4  Scaligeri  Epistolcz,  No.  9,  to  Beda. 

5  J.  C.  Scaligeri  Pro  M.  Tullio  Cicerone,  contra  Desid.  Erasmum  Rotero- 
damum,  Oratio  I.  1531.  I  use  the  edition  of  Toulouse,  1620. 

6  The  same  charge  was  brought  by  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  who,  on  July  20, 
1784,  wrote  of  the  Ciceronianus:  “My  affection  and  understanding  went 
along  with  Erasmus,  except  that  once  or  twice  he  somewhat  unskilfully 
entangles  Cicero’s  civil  or  moral,  with  his  rhetorical  character.”  Boswell's 
Life  of  Johnson,  ed.  G.  B.  Hill.  1887,  iv,  353. 


THE  COLLOQUIES  313 

former  attack  he  replies  by  a  comprehensive  vindication 
of  the  Roman  statesman;  to  the  latter,  though  he  antic¬ 
ipates  Burke  in  remarking  that  “one  cannot  draw  an 
indictment  against  whole  nations,”1  by  animadverting 
upon  the  drunkenness  of  the  Germans.  The  bulk  of 
the  oration,  however,  consists  in  abuse  of  his  opponent, 
whom  he  calls  a  parricide  and  a  parasite,  a  drunkard  and 
a  literary  hack.  After  having  left  the  cloister  because 
tired  of  the  religious  life,  Erasmus  is  said  to  have  wan¬ 
dered  from  town  to  town,  getting  his  living  by  mean 
occupations  and  by  begging,  and  to  have  settled  at  the 
Aldine  Academy  in  Venice,  whence  he  had  issued  that 
collection  of  Adages  which  had  first  given  him  a  name, 
though  it  was  stolen  from  the  works  of  other  men. 

It  was  probably  this  innuendo  about  his  life  at  Venice 
that  convinced  Erasmus  that  the  name  Scaliger  was 
fictitious  and  that  his  assailant  was  really  Aleander, 
whose  style  he  thought  he  recognized,  as  well  as  he 
knew  his  face.2  When  he  wrote  to  reproach  him  for  the 
attack,3  Aleander  replied  in  no  less  than  four  letters,  deny¬ 
ing  the  charge,  expressing  the  highest  regard  for  his  old  v 
friend,  and  begging  for  a  reconciliation.4  But  Erasmus, 
who  had  previously  smarted  under  the  treachery  of  the 
Italian  nuncio,  refused  to  be  convinced  either  by  his 
protestations5  or  by  the  following  letter  from  Francis 
Rabelais,6  then  an  unknown  proof-reader  at  Lyons: 

I  recently  learned  from  Hilaire  Bertulph,  with  whom  I  am  here 
very  intimate,  that  you  are  planning  something  or  other  against  the 

1  “Nihil  in  nationes  integras  invehendum,”  p.  9. 

2  “Ego  illic  phrasim  Aleandri  non  minus  agnosco  quam  novi  faciem,”  to 
Choler,  Horawitz,  Erasmiana ,  i,  18,  November  1,  1531.  Cf.  also  his  letters  to 
Tomicki,  February  4,  1532,  Miaskowski:  Erasmiana ,  No.  22;  to  Amerbach, 
November  29,  1531,  Erasmi  Epistolce  ad  Bon.  Amerbachium ,  No.  70. 

3  Lammer:  Monumenta  Faticana,  1861,  p.  99. 

4  Two  of  April  1,  1532,  one  of  July  4th,  and  one  of  July  5th,  all  published  by 
J.  Paquier:  “  Erasme  et  Aleandre,”  Melanges  d’Archeologie  et  d’histoire 
publies  par  Vecole  frangaise  a  Rome ,  1895,  pp.  351  ff.  Cf.  Aleander  to  Sanga. 
January  28,  1532,  H.  Lammer:  Monumenta  Faticana ,  1861,  p.  99. 

5  To  Viglius  van  Zuichem,  LB.  App.  ep.  370. 

6  Forstemann  und  Gunther,  ep.  182.  November  30,  1532. 


3H 


ERASMUS 


calumnies  of  Jerome  Aleander,  whom  you  suspect  of  having  written 
against  you  under  the  fictitious  name  of  Scaliger.  I  will  not  allow 
you  to  doubt  longer  and  to  be  deceived  by  this  suspicion.  For  Scaliger 
himself  is  an  Italian  exile  from  Verona,  of  the  exiled  family  of  Della 
Scala,  and  now  he  is  a  physician  at  Agen,  and  a  man  well  known  to 
me.  By  Zeus ,  he  has  no  good  reputation.  He  is,  therefore,  that  slanderer,1 
as  shall  appear  shortly.  He  is  not  unskillful  in  the  healing  art,  but  for 
the  rest  he  is  altogether  such  an  atheist  as  no  one  else  ever  was.  I  have 
not  yet  happened  to  see  his  book,  nor  has  any  copy  of  it  been  brought 
hither  for  many  months,  so  that  I  think  it  has  been  suppressed  by 
your  well-wfishers  at  Paris. 

Erasmus  wisely  decided  to  treat  the  attack  with  silent 
contempt,  nor  was  he  stirred  to  reply  bv  the  further 
book  against  the  Ciceronianus  written  by  Etienne  Dolet, 
a  gifted  printer  and  humanist  of  Lyons,  later  put  to 
death  as  an  atheist.  This  Dialogue  concerning  the  Imita¬ 
tion  of  Cicero  in  defense  of  Christopher  de  Longueil  against 
Desiderius  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam  appeared  early  in  153 5. 2 
In  form  it  is  an  imaginary  conversation  between  Sir 
Thomas  More  and  Simon  de  Villeneuve,  and  it  contains  a 
good  deal  of  rancorous  abuse  of  the  “old  buffoon  and  tooth¬ 
less  drybones,”  Erasmus.  The  man  attacked  was  inclined 
to  suspect  that  this,  too,  was  written  either  by  Aleander 
or  by  some  one  whom  he  had  suborned  to  do  it.3  How¬ 
ever,  as  he  wrote  his  friends,  Merbelius  and  Laurentius:4 

I  think  it  best  to  ignore  the  absurdities  of  these  youths,  whose 
violence  tends  to  destroy  learning  as  that  of  the  heretics  subverts 
religion;  for  their  praises  make  the  humanities  inhumanities,  and  the 
Muses  Furies.  The  book  which  you  sent  me  I  received  some  years 
ago.  In  it  I  see  nothing  pertaining  to  me.  If  they  make  me  the 
enemy  of  Cicero  they  err  as  widely  as  possible.  Now  they  say  that 
at  Lyons  Etienne  Dolet  has  published  a  sour  book  against  me.  .  .  . 
Julius  Caesar  Scaliger  has  published  at  Paris  an  oration  against  me 
stuffed  with  the  most  impudent  lies  and  the  most  furious  reviling, 
although  I  am  sure  from  many  certain  arguments  that  he  is  not  the 
author  of  it.  ...  I  have  no  desire  to  strive  with  such  enemies, 
nor  do  I  think  it  expedient,  and  I  hope  you  will  also  not  answer  them. 
They  seek  antagonists. 

1  fiia(3o?iog  The  italicized  passage  in  Greek. 

2  Christie,  op.  cit.,  pp.  204  ff. 

s  LB.  ep.  1299. 

4  LB.  ep.  1278,  March  18,  1535. 


THE  COLLOQUIES  315 

Scaliger,  who  had  been  trying  to  get  a  friend  to  recon¬ 
cile  him  to  Erasmus,1  stung  by  this  letter,  which  was  sent 
him  by  its  recipients,  immediately  composed  a  second 
oration,  which  appeared  in  the  winter  of  1536-37,  after 
the  death  of  his  enemy.2  His  abuse  and  vainglorious 
boasting  are  more  outrageous  than  ever.  While  he  him¬ 
self  is  “the  flower  of  the  Italian  nobility/’  his  antagonist 
is  a  drunkard,  and  was  a  pedagogue  at  the  court  of  Philip 
of  Burgundy,  and  one  who  had  ransacked  the  Italian 
libraries,  as  a  perfidious  plagiarist,  to  steal  their  treas¬ 
ures  for  his  own  books.  This  Scaliger  avers  that  he  has 
learned  on  the  authority  of  John  Jucundus3  and  Jerome 
Dominius,  who  had  been  his  tutors  in  youth. 

The  opinion  of  the  learned  world  was  alienated  by 
these  savage  attacks  on  an  old  and  distinguished  man. 
Scaliger  himself  later  confessed  that  some  people,  for 
their  love  of  his  enemy,  would  have  none  of  his  books  in 
their  libraries.4  Far  from  making  common  cause  with 
Dolet,  he  was  furious  at  the  man  w'ho  had  dared  to  write 
on  the  same  subject  that  he  had  chosen  for  his  own,  and 
falsely  accused  Dolet  of  having  stolen  all  his  arguments 
from  the  oration.  John  Maurisotus,  a  physician  of  Dole 
in  Burgundy,  wrote  a  belated  Defense  of  Cicero  against 
His  Calumniators ,5  but  German  opinion  was  favorable  to 
the  great  humanist.  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Camerarius:6 

I  have  seen  Dolet’s  book  and  am  thinking  of  instructing  some  one 
to  reply  to  it.  Erasmus,  indeed,  is  not  altogether  undeserving  of  this 
Nemesis  which  has  come  upon  him,  but  the  impudence  of  this  young 
man  displeases  me. 

1  To  James  Omphalius,  Agen,  May  4,  1536,  Scaligeri  epistolce,  No.  17. 

2  J.  C.  Scaligeri  Oratio  II,  1536.  I  use  the  edition  of  Toulouse,  1620. 

3  On  Giovanni  Giocondo,  see  Sandys,  ii,  index. 

4  E pistoles  Scaligeri,  p.  78.  “Fragmenta  Praefationis  J.  C.  Scaligeri  in 
Aristotelis  Historiam  de  Animalibus.”  Joseph  Scaliger,  the  scholar,  son  of 
Julius  Caesar,  said  that  his  father  was  later  sorry  for  having  written  against 
Erasmus.  He,  Joseph,  tried  to  suppress  his  father’s  letters  against  Erasmus. 
Scaligerana,  1695,  p.  140. 

5  J.  Maurisoti:  Libellus  de  Parechremate  contra  Ciceronis  calumniatores, 
1550;  on  which  cf.  A.  Bomer:  “  Aus  dem  Kampf  gegen  die  Colloquia  Familiaria 
des  Erasmus,”  Archiv  fur  Kulturgeschichte,  ix. 

6  Quoted  by  Christie,  p.  211. 


ERASMUS 


316 

Camerarius  had  already  expressed  his  own  opinion  in 
a  letter  to  his  friend,  Sigismund  Gelenius,1  as  follows: 

I  learn  that  Erasmus  has  returned  to  you.  I  wish  him  a  quiet 
resting-place  at  last,  as  his  age  and  laborious  life  deserve.  They  say 
he  has  been  most  unworthily  attacked  by  some  Frenchman,  by  whom 
all  his  writings  are  not  only  rejected,  but  trampled  underfoot  on 
account  of  his  Ciceronianus.  They  say  that  the  Frenchman  exults  in 
the  ardor  of  youth,  but  our  Erasmus  is  languid  with  age.  Wherefore 
I  often  think  of  Homer’s  verse:  ‘Old  man,  how  sorely  do  the  young 
warriors  harass  you!’ 

The  opinion  of  those  who  would  see  the  good  in  both 
sides — like  the  tertium  quid  in  Browning’s  The  Ring  and 
the  Book — was  expressed  by  Roger  Ascham  in  these 
words:2 

Erasmus,  being  occupied  more  in  spying  other  men’s  faults  than 
in  declaring  his  own  advice,  is  mistaken  of  many.  .  .  .  He  and 

Longolius  only  differed  in  this,  that  the  one  seemed  to  give  overmuch, 
the  other  overlittle  to  him  [Cicero]  whom  they  both  loved  best. 

“Those  who  can,  do,”  says  Bernard  Shaw,  “those  who 
can’t,  teach.”  This  cutting  epigram  was  not  true  of 
Erasmus.  If  he  spent  his  life  largely  in  teaching  the  art 
of  writing,  he  was  himself  one  of  the  greatest  masters  of 
that  art.  As  he  never  sought,  so  he  naturally  never 
attained,  the  distinctive  beauty  of  the  classics:  that 
perfect  adaptation  of  language  to  thought,  that  su¬ 
preme  artistry  which,  sometimes  by  apparently  simple 
means,  sometimes  by  perceptible  elaboration,  unfailingly 
achieved  the  desired  and  definite  effect.  Those  who  at¬ 
tempted  imitation  and  nothing  more  fell  into  an  arid, 
stilted  pedantry,  alike  fatal  to  all  freshness  of  thought 
and  to  all  true  beauty  of  form. 

But  Erasmus,  having  imbibed,  as  had  few  others  even 
in  that  age  of  idolatry  of  the  classics,  the  spirit  of  the 
ancients,  finally  attained  a  mastery  of  style  at  once 
original  and  attractive.  That  Latin  was  hardly  a  dead 

1  Joachimi  Camerarii  Epistola,  1583,  dated  “1531.” 

2  R.  Ascham:  The  Schoolmaster ,  1563,  Ascham’ s  English  Works ,  1761,  p.  305. 


THE  COLLOQUIES  317 

language,  but  one  very  much  alive  both  in  the  mouths  and 
on  the  quills  of  scholars,  is  proved  by  the  perfectly  living 
treatment  of  the  medium  by  this  great  master.  The  very 
fact  that  the  tongue  he  wrote  was  not  exactly  that  of 
ancient  Rome,  that  it  was  enriched  when  necessary  with 
new  words,  and  that  it  did  not  even  precisely  follow  the 
classical  usage  in  the  more  intricate  sequences  of  moods 
and  tenses,  proves  not  that  the  writer  was  careless  or 
ignorant,  but  that  he  had  a  different  feeling  for  the  value 
of  words,  due  to  an  evolution  in  human  thought  itself 
and,  within  the  narrow  limits  set  by  his  own  taste,  per¬ 
fectly  legitimate.  Thomas  More  was  occasionally  slov¬ 
enly  and  obscure,  Colet  now  and  then  ungrammatical; 
Luther,  a  great  wielder  of  his  own  tongue,  was  anything 
but  Hellenic  or  Roman  in  his  thought  and  manner. 
But  Erasmus,  mastering  his  medium  and  not  mastered 
by  it,  fitted  modern  thoughts  into  an  ancient  speech  with 
the  ease  of  a  born  artist. 

Great  care,  infinite  pains,  went  to  the  final  result. 
When  Erasmus  blames  “the  vice  of  his  nature”  for 
undue  haste  in  precipitating  his  thoughts,1  he  does  him¬ 
self  an  injustice.  If  he  wrote  rapidly  at  last,  it  is  because 
he  had  toiled  painfully  at  first.  His  own  text-books  on 
composition  show  the  infinite  pains  he  took  to  acquire 
a  style.  Like  other  masters  of  language — Pater  and 
Landor,  for  example — he  emphasizes  particularly  the 
selection  of  vocabulary.  The  words  chosen  should  be 
apt,  elegant,  idiomatic,  and  pure,  and  like  dress  should 
be  appropriate  to  the  subject  adorned.  An  unfit  style 
is  as  awkward  as  a  woman’s  dress  on  a  man.  Mean, 
unusual,  poetic,  new,  obsolete,  foreign,  and  obscene 
words  should  be  avoided.2 

1  “Omnia  nostra  fere  praecipitamus;  hoc  est  naturae  meae  vitium.”  To 
Maldonato,  March  30, 1527.  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii,  1907,  p.  545.  P.  S.  Allen 
notes  the  speed  with  which  he  wrote  his  letters,  compared  with  the  laborious 
composition  evinced  in  the  epistles  of  his  correspondents.  See  Allen’s  lecture 
on  Erasmus,  delivered  for  the  Genootschap  Nederland-Engeland,  1922, 
p.  16. 

*  De  ratione  studii ,  LB.,  i,  517  ff. 


ERASMUS 


3i8 

But  Erasmus  inculcated  and  practised  other  excellen¬ 
cies  than  this.  Variety  of  construction  is  emphasized  and 
rules  given  for  the  proper  uses  of  the  copious,  and  of  the 
concise,  manner.  But  the  secret  of  his  own  charm  is 
something  more  elusive  and  personal  than  any  style 
acquired  by  mere  study  and  rote  could  be.  Like  all 
great  masters  of  speech,  he  invested  everything  he  said 
with  a  peculiar  and  appropriate  pungency.  By  whetting 
his  words  to  a  keen  edge,  he  attained  delicate  polish  and 
glow  of  supple  beauty.  One  of  the  more  external  and 
striking  elements  of  his  style  was  the  habitual  moder¬ 
ation  of  his  statement;  the  careful  guarding  against  all 
glares  of  affirmation  or  denial.  Is  a  reading  in  the  New 
Testament  ambiguous?  No;  it  is  only  “slightly  am¬ 
biguous”  (nonnihil  ambigo).  Does  Erasmus  reject  an 
argument?  Far  be  such  brutal  positiveness  from  him; 
he  “begins  to  have  a  glimmering  of  doubt”  (subdubitare 
coepi).  Erasmus  thought  that  Luther  wrote  excellently 
well,  but  all  he  chooses  to  assert  is  that  the  professor’s 
books  are  “rather  more  like  Latin  than  the  average” 
(sermo  paulo  latinior).  Double  negatives  tone  down  an 
otherwise  too  conspicuous  assertion.  Except  when  he 
is  writing  to  patrons  for  expected  gifts,  Erasmus  speaks 
of  his  friends  as  “persons  not  altogether  unknown  to 
me.”  Diminutives  play  their  part  is  qualifying  the 
brutal  shock  of  things;  the  writer’s  person  is  usually  his 
“poor  little  body”  (corpusculum). 

But  even  as  we  grasp  and  press  the  style,  its  secret 
eludes  us;  the  beauty  of  Erasmus’s  writings  is  something 
more  subtle,  more  difficult,  than  can  be  readily  indicated 
by  rough  analysis.  Now  and  then  there  is  a  rapier  thrust 
of  perfect  epigram;  a  stab,  planted  like  a  wasp’s  sting, 
infallibly  on  the  nerve  ganglion  of  the  chosen  victim. 
Still  more  perfect  in  its  way  is  the  repressed  irony  of  the 
author,  never  more  effective  than  when  most  latent,  the 
dry  wit  that  held  up  to  scorn  or  ridicule  an  institution  or 
a  person,  apparently  by  a  simple,  matter-of-fact  narra¬ 
tive  without  an  abusive,  or  vulnerable,  word  in  it.  It 


THE  COLLOQUIES  319 

was  this  that  made  the  persons  attacked  so  furious;  they 
felt  that  they  were  being  stripped  naked  and  pilloried, 
while  they  could  not  find  any  weapon  of  defense.  A 
candid,  almost  naive  description  of  a  pilgrimage  or  of 
an  inquisitor  makes  the  reader  wonder  how  anything  so 
silly  or  so  malignant  was  ever  allowed  to  exist,  but  what 
was  there  in  it  all  tangible  enough  to  strike?  A  critic, 
after  reading  Anatole  France’s  lie  des  Pengouins ,  a  satire 
much  in  the  Erasmian  manner,  said  that  there  was 
nothing  left  to  do  but  to  commit  suicide.  When  the 
monks  read  the  Folly  and  the  Colloquies  they  felt  there 
was  no  appropriate  comment  but  to  murder  the  author. 


CHAPTER  XII 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER 

THE  importance  of  Erasmus’s  biography  lies  not 
only  in  his  contributions  to  the  beauty  and  wisdom 
of  the  world,  but  also  in  his  representative  function.  In 
his  own  person  he  went  through  exactly  the  same  evolu¬ 
tion  as  did  the  Renaissance  in  the  whole  of  western 
Europe,  that  of  being  at  first  the  preparer,  then  the 
moderate  supporter,  and  finally  the  enemy,  of  the 
Reformation.  What  was  the  cause  of  this  process?  The 
problem  is  one  of  the  deepest  in  history,  one  of  the  most 
studied,  and  one  in  which  there  is  least  agreement.  The 
answer  here  proposed  is  as  follows: 

Hitherto  undue  emphasis  has  been  placed  upon  the 
Renaissance  and  Reformation  in  the  history  of  the 
period  of  transition  from  mediaeval  to  modern  times. 
These  movements  have,  together  with  politics  and  ex¬ 
ploration,  occupied  almost  the  whole  field  of  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  time.  But  contemporary  with  them  there 
was  taking  place  an  equally  important  economic  revolu¬ 
tion,  the  change  from  gild  production  to  capitalism. 
And  outside  of  both  there  was  a  change  in  life  perhaps 
most  important  of  all  made  by  the  new  discoveries: 
printing,  glass  lenses,  gunpowder,  the  compass,  and  in 
the  field  of  pure  knowledge  the  Copernican  hypothesis, 
and  the  lesser,  but  still  important,  achievements  in 
mathematics  and  in  natural  science  of  Leonardo,  Cardan, 
Servetus,  Stevins,  and  Gesner.  These  are  sometimes 
included  in  the  Renaissance,  but  it  would  conduce  to 
clarity  of  thought  could  that  name  be  restricted,  as  it  often 
is,  to  the  literary  and  artistic  revival  of  the  classic  spirit. 
So  much  must  be  said,  in  order  to  put  the  Renaissance 


320 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  321 

and  Reformation  in  their  proper  perspective.  When  it 
is  once  grasped  that  they  are,  not  absolutely  but  rela¬ 
tively,  smaller  than  they  commonly  appear  to  be,  it  will 
be  easier  to  see  that  they  are  fundamentally  two  different 
branches  of  the  same  movement.  Many  writers,  espe¬ 
cially  since  Nietzsche,  have  regarded  the  Reformation 
as  totally  different  from  the  Renaissance,  a  reaction 
against  it  and  not  a  development  of  it.1  But,  according 
to  the  view  here  presented,  this  is  an  error,  and  the 
older  opinion,  common  in  the  eighteenth  and  early  nine¬ 
teenth  centuries,  that  the  two  movements  were  nearly 
allied,  is  more  correct. 

No  one  can  deny  the  striking  similarity  between  the 
two.  Both  were  animated  by  a  desire  for  a  return  to 
antiquity,  a  nostalgia  for  the  golden  age  of  both  pagan 
Rome  and  of  Christianity.  Both  were  revolts  against 
the  mediaeval  scholasticism.  Neither  was  primarily 
intellectual  or  rational;  both  were  literary  and  emo¬ 
tional  reactions  against  the  pure  but  barren  rationalism 
of  Aquinas  and  Scotus.  Both  were  children  of  a  new 
individualism,  whether  expressed  in  the  art  of  Titian  or 
in  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  only.  The  con¬ 
trast  sometimes  drawn  between  their  attitudes  toward 
the  things  of  this  world  and  of  the  next  is  really  unwar¬ 
ranted;  both  were  reactions  against  the  asceticism  and 
other-worldliness  of  the  Middle  Ages.  The  Renaissance 
saw  the  cultural,  the  Reformation  the  ethical,  value  of 
wealth,  industry,  prosperity,  and  of  woman;  and  both, 
in  comparison  with  Catholicism,  stressed  the  claims  of 
this  world  rather  than  those  of  the  next.  Finally,  both 
were  children  of  the  newly  grown  cities  and  of  the 
bourgeois  class,  first  brought  to  power  in  the  state  by 
the  capitalistic  revolution. 

Why  then,  being  so  closely  akin,  did  the  two  move¬ 
ments  finally  come  to  so  bitter  an  antagonism  that  both 
could  hardly  survive  on  the  same  soil  ?  It  may  be  pointed 
out  that  the  struggle  itself  is  a  proof  of  propinquity;  one 

1  See  my  Age  of  the  Reformation ,  pp.  730  ff. 


322 


ERASMUS 


cannot  have  a  battle  between  a  whale  and  elephant,  nor 
can  a  firm  dealing  in  shoes  compete  closely  with  one 
producing  automobiles.  The  two  fought  because  they 
were  so  near  together;  because  both  cultivated  and  both 
sought  to  dominate  one  sphere  of  human  interest,  the 
spiritual-mental  for  which  we  have  no  single  word,  but 
which  the  Germans  call  geistig.  But  perhaps  the  com¬ 
pound  English  word  just  used  has  its  advantages,  for 
it  points  out  the  difference  in  the  ideals  of  the  two  move¬ 
ments,  the  one  appealed  primarily  to  the  mental  life  of 
art  and  thought,  the  other  primarily  to  the  spiritual  life 
of  religion  and  morals. 

And  this  is  the  only  difference,  save  one  presently  to 
be  discussed,  which  can  be  pointed  out.  It  is  impossible 
to  call  one  movement  liberal  and  the  other  conservative. 
Luther's  rejection  of  the  sacramental  system  of  the 
Church  shocked  Erasmus  by  its  radicalism  as  much  as 
the  humanist's  play  of  mind  over  dogma  repelled  the 
Reformer  by  its  liberalism.  If,  in  his  general  attitude, 
the  Dutch  scholar  was  more  open-minded,  in  particular 
points  the  Saxon  heresiarch  was  more  advanced.  Even 
those  men  of  the  Renaissance  who  rejected  the  Christian 
mysteries  did  so  not  primarily  on  rational  grounds,  but 
rather  on  the  authority  of  the  ancients.  If  Livy  exalted 
the  Roman  religion  because  it  was  patriotic,  Machiavelli 
drew  the  conclusion  that  it  was  preferable  to  Christianity; 
if  Tacitus  spoke  of  Christianity  as  a  vile  superstition,  his 
editor,  Poggio,  implicitly  followed  his  ipse  dixit.  Nor  can 
we  see  a  general  rejection  of  superstition  by  the  leaders 
of  either  Renaissance  or  Reformation.  Sir  Thomas  More 
was  convinced  the  miracles  did  happen  at  shrines  and 
that  devils  existed,  and  Benvenuto  Cellini  saw  devils, 
just  as  did  Luther.  Nor  was  Erasmus  himself  altogether 
free  from  these  obsessions  of  his  age.  Like  his  con¬ 
temporaries,  he  hung  votive  offerings  in  churches,1  and 
like  them  occasionally  consulted  astrologers.2  He  re- 

1  LB.  v.,  1335. 

2  Allen,  ep.  948. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  323 

peated,  without  any  clear  indication  that  he  disbelieved 
them,  stories  of  witchcraft  and  of  the  direct  intervention 
of  devils  in  human  affairs.  However,  notwithstanding 
these  signs  that  Erasmus  was  a  man  of  his  age,  there  is 
much  to  show  that  he  was  more  skeptical  and  enlight¬ 
ened  than  most  of  his  contemporaries.  In  the  Moria , 
in  his  letters,  frequently  in  his  Colloquies  and  in  the 
epistle  defending  them,  he  ridicules  such  superstitions  as 
alchemy,  demonology,  witchcraft,  and  spiritism.  In  his 
colloquy,  “The  Alchemist,”  he  exposes  the  fraudulent 
practices  of  the  magicians  and  the  gullibility  of  the 
public.  In  the  colloquy  called  “Exorcism  of  the  Spec¬ 
ter,”  after  describing  several  bogus  apparitions,  he  adds: 
“Hitherto  I  have  not  given  much  credence  to  the  cur¬ 
rent  ghost-stories;  hereafter  I  shall  believe  them  still  less.” 
Even  in  the  letter  to  Anthony  of  Bergen,  describing  the 
doings  of  a  wizard,  he  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
witchcraft  is  a  new  crime,  unknown  to  the  civil  and 
canon  laws.1  In  summing  up  his  position  one  may  say 
that  it  is  probable  that  Erasmus  was  skeptical  of  most 
current  superstitions,  without  denying  in  principle  the 
possibility  of  witchcraft  or  magic.  It  was  much  the 
position  of  Joseph  Addison,  who  said:  “I  believe  in 
general  that  there  is  and  has  been  such  a  thing  as 
witchcraft,  but  at  the  same  time  can  give  no  credit  to 
any  particular  instance  of  it.”2  Amiel  and  Froude  go 
too  far  when  they  attribute  to  the  humanist  a  complete 
and  scoffing  rationalism.  Enough  glory  to  him  that  in 
a  superstitious  age  he  effectively  derided  the  cruel  and 
the  credulous. 

Returning  from  this  digression  to  a  consideration  of 
the  relations  of  Renaissance  and  Reformation,  we  can¬ 
not  maintain  that  the  former  was  as  tolerant,  nor 
the  latter  as  intolerant  as  they  are  sometimes  repre¬ 
sented.  In  the  great  and  free  fifteenth  century,  Jews 

1  Allen,  ep.  143.  But  there  are  some  allusions  to  witchcraft  in  both  laws. 
One  section  of  the  Decretum  (c.  6,  X)  is  headed  “De  frigidis  et  maleficiatis.” 

2  Spectator ,  no.  117,  July  14,  1711. 


324 


ERASMUS 


and  Moriscos,  Hussites  and  Lollards,  were  sacrificed 
in  holocausts;  and  there  were  some  Reformers  who 
stopped  short  of  approving  the  execution  of  Servetus. 
Luther,  in  his  first  period,  before  he  met  with  that 
hardest  of  all  tests,  complete  success,  was  tolerant,1 
and  the  limits  of  Erasmus’s  endurance  of  false  opinion 
are  clearly  marked.  His  very  plea  against  some  persecu¬ 
tion — “Who  ever  heard  orthodox  bishops  incite  kings 
to  slaughter  heretics  who  were  nothing  but  heretics?”2 — 
indicates  these  limits,  and  still  more  clearly  does  a  letter 
of  uncertain,  but  late,  date:  “The  Anabaptists  are  by 
no  means  to  be  tolerated.  For  the  Apostles  command  us 
to  obey  the  magistrates,  and  these  men  object  to  obeying 
Christian  princes.”3 

In  addition  to  this  difference  of  emphasis  on  the  things 
of  the  spirit  and  the  things  of  the  mind,  the  only  impor¬ 
tant  contrast  between  Renaissance  and  Reformation  is 
that  the  first  was  an  aristocratic,  the  second  a  popular, 
movement.  The  humanist  sought  to  educate  the  classes; 
the  Reformer  to  convert  the  masses.  A  corollary  of  this 
was  that  the  former  was  international,  the  latter  national. 
Erasmus’s  pacifism  was  based  on  a  cosmopolitan  culture 
that  found  any  fatherland  but  the  world  too  small;  the 
intensification  of  nationalism  following  the  Reformation 
was  but  the  logical  effect  of  the  appeal  to  the  patriotic 
peoples.  The  humanists  spoke  Latin,  the  Reformers 
the  vernacular. 

If  there  is  any  truth  in  what  has  just  been  said,  the 
deeper  reasons  for  Erasmus’s  changing  attitude  toward 
the  Reformation  become  apparent.  Sharing  its  interests, 
approving  most  of  its  program,  he  at  first  educated  the 
Reformers  and  then  did  his  best,  for  the  four  years 
following  the  promulgation  of  the  Theses ,  to  get  them  a 
fair  hearing.  But,  after  his  return  to  Basle  in  November, 
1521,  he  diverged  more  and  more  from  them,  and 

1  On  Luther,  The  Age  of  the  Reformation ,  pp.  643  ff. 

s  LB.  ix,  904  ff.  Propositio  III. 

*  Lond.  xxx,  77. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  325 

primarily  for  the  two  reasons  just  indicated;  that  his 
interests  emphasized  the  cause  of  learning  and  theirs  the 
cause  of  dogmatic  religion,  and  because  he  both  distrusted 
and  feared  a  popular  rebellion,  evidently  verging  more 
and  more  toward  violence.  And  once  the  breach  was 
made  and  felt  ever  so  slightly,  it  was  widened  by  personal 
associations.  Pulled  by  powerful  friends  toward  Rome 
and  pushed  by  the  indiscreet  and  impertinent  zeal  of 
the  innovators  away  from  Wittenberg,  it  is  almost  sur¬ 
prising  that  for  so  long  he  tried  to  take,  if  not  an  openly 
approving,  at  least  a  neutral,  position  toward  the 
Reformers. 

The  choice  was  hard  for  personal,  as  for  public,  con¬ 
siderations.  Some  of  his  best  old  friends — Hutten,  Jonas, 
Pirckheimer  at  first,  Capito,  (Ecolampadius,  and  others — 
hastened  to  enlist  under  the  standard  of  the  “gospel.” 
Hatred,  fear,  and  disgust  at  the  actions  of  the  “Phari¬ 
sees”  of  Louvain  and  throughout  the  cloisters  of  Europe 
almost  outweighed  his  dread  of  religious  revolution. 
“Should  Luther  go  under,”  he  well  knew,  “neither  God 
nor  man  could  longer  endure  the  monks;  nor  can  Luther 
perish  without  jeopardizing  a  great  part  of  the  pure 
gospel  truth.”1  The  reports  sent  to  Wittenberg,  there¬ 
fore,  immediately  after  Erasmus’s  arrival  in  Basle,  that 
he  was  working  prudently  to  help  the  cause  of  truth,  and 
that  Luther  and  Melanchthon  were  much  loved  in  that 
town,  were  not  wholly  without  foundation.2 

The  enemies  of  the  “Gospel”  still  regarded  Erasmus 
as  one  of  its  chief  supports.  When  he  tried  to  get  an 
imperial  edict  imposing  silence  on  his  detractors  at 
Louvain,  he  was  answered  by  one  of  the  courtiers  in  a 
letter  expressing  doubts  of  the  humanist’s  fidelity  to  the 
Church.3  The  emperor  refused  to  do  anything  until  he 
had  some  proof,  such  as  a  published  work,  showing  that 


1  Erasmus  to  Spalatin,  March  12,  1523;  L.  C.  ep.  581. 

*  C.  Pellican  to  Melanchthon,  November  30,  1521.  Melanchthoniana 
Pezdagogica,  ed.  K.  Hartfelder,  1892,  p.  iq. 

3  Guido  Morillon  to  Erasmus  (before  March  20),  1522,  Enthoven,  ep.  15. 


ERASMUS 


326 

Erasmus  was  really  hostile  to  Luther.1  One  of  his  friends 
attended  a  dinner  given  by  King  Louis  of  Hungary  and 
his  wife,  the  emperor’s  sister  Mary,  at  which  it  was 
plainly  said  that  the  heretic  had  taken  everything  from 
the  humanist.2  In  long  letters  to  powerful  friends3 
Erasmus  did  his  best  to  clear  himself  of  suspicion,  pro¬ 
testing  that  rumors  of  his  infidelity  emanated  from 
Aleander  and  the  Dominicans  of  Louvain,  that  he  had 
always  said,  even  to  Luther’s  patrons,  the  Elector 
Frederic,  the  King  of  Denmark,  and  the  Captain  of  the 
Bohemians,4  that  the  Wittenberger  was  wrong  in  many 
things.  Moreover,  he  wrote,  the  Lutherans  threatened 
him  with  spiteful  pamphlets.  He  might  have  made  a 
great  deal  had  he  taken  sides  for  Luther,  seeing  that  in 
Switzerland  there  were  more  than  a  hundred  thousand 
men  who  hated  the  papacy  and  approved  the  rebel  against 
it.5  One  bit  of  special  evidence,  indeed,  tending  to  show 
that  Erasmus  was  inwardly  true  to  the  Church  at  this 
time,  is  to  be  found  in  a  thoroughly  orthodox  liturgy 
prepared  for  the  press  by  him  in  1523,  though  withheld 
from  publication  until  two  years  later.6 

When,  in  January,  1522,  Erasmus’s  old  friend  Adrian 
of  Utrecht  was  raised  to  the  tiara  to  succeed  the  recently 
defunct  Leo,  the  humanist  regarded  the  event  as  by  no 
means  auspicious  for  the  future  peace  of  the  Church. 
For,  while  Adrian  was  a  sincere  and  moral  man,  eager 
to  put  down  corruption  at  Rome,  he  had  already  taken 
sides  with  much  energy  against  Luther,  and  he  was 
known  as  a  mere  schoolman,  untouched  by  polite  learn- 


1  Haloin  to  Erasmus,  March  31,  1522.  Forstemann-Giinther,  ep.  6. 

2  Piso  to  Erasmus  (after  May  7,  1522),  Forstemann-Giinther,  ep.  7. 

3  To  Fisher,  Jortin:  Life  of  Erasmus ,  iii,  184.  To  Wolsey,  March  7,  1522, 
partly  published  by  A.  Meyer:  Erasme  et  Luther ,  p.  163  f.  Abstract  in  Letters 
and  Papers  of  Henry  Fill,  iii,  no.  2090.  L.  C.  no.  531. 

4  Artlebus  von  Boskowitz  of  Znaim,  Supreme  Captain  of  Moravia,  who  had 
urged  Erasmus  to  join  Luther. 

5  Erasmus  to  Jodocus,  president  of  the  Town  Council  of  Malines,  July  14, 
1522.  LB.  ep.  629. 

6  J.  Zeller:  “  Die  Laurentanische  Liturgie,”  Theologische  Quartalschrift ,  xc, 
280-284. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  327 

ing.1  The  humanist,  however,  judging  it  expedient  to 
be  on  good  terms  with  the  powers,  dedicated  an  edition 
of  Arnobius  to  the  new  pontiff,2  and  wrote  him  a  letter 
excusing  his  migration  to  Basle.3  The  pope  replied,  on 
December  1,  1522,  and  again  on  January  23,  1523, 4 
requesting  his  correspondent  to  come  to  Rome  and  to 
write  against  Luther.  The  first  of  these  breves  was 
drafted  by  Aleander;  the  original  concept  is  extant  and 
is  most  interesting  for  the  fact  that  in  it  there  is  more 
praise  for  Erasmus  and  more  denunciation  of  the 
Lutherans  than  in  the  final  form.5  In  his  reply  the 
scholar  of  Rotterdam  promised  to  do  what  he  could  for 
the  Church,  but  excused  himself  from  going  to  Rome  on 
account  of  his  health.  Together  with  complaints  of  the 
odium  excited  against  himself  by  the  Lutherans  he 
inserted  a  plea  for  gentle  means  on  the  part  of  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  remarking  that  the  Wyclifites 
in  England  were  rather  pressed  gradually  out  of  exist¬ 
ence  than  driven  by  force  and  slaughter.6  This  advice 
the  author  himself  felt  would  do  little  good  against  the 
opposite  advice  of  Eck  and  the  extremists.7 

Adrian  VI,  however,  did  not  give  up  hopes  of  employ¬ 
ing  so  powerful  a  pen  in  the  service  of  the  Church.  He 
deputed  his  nuncio  in  Switzerland,  Ennio  Filonardo, 
whom  Erasmus  had  met  at  Constance  in  September, 
1522,  to  ask  the  humanist  to  draw  up  a  memorial  on  the 
quickest  way  to  extirpate  the  new  sect.8  The  request, 
however,  called  forth  only  an  elaborate  excuse  for  not 

1  So  Erasmus  wrote  Fisher,  1522.  Jortin,  iii,  184.  Letters  and  Papers  of 
Henry  VIII,  iii,  no.  2731. 

2  Lond.  xxviii,  9;  LB.  ep.  633.  August  1,  1522. 

3  December  22,  1522.  LB.  ep.  641. 

4  Lond.  xxiii,  3,  4;  LB.  epp.  639,  648.  On  December  13th  Hannibal  wrote 
Wolsey:  “His  Holiness  has  sent  for  Erasmus  under  a  fair  color  by  his  brief, 
and  if  he  come  not  I  think  the  pope  will  not  be  content.”  Letters  and  Papers 
of  Henry  VIII,  iii,  no.  2614. 

5  J.  Paquier:  Jerome  Aleandre,  1900,  pp.  290  If. 

6  Undated  letter,  Lond.  xviii,  20;  LB.  ep.  649. 

7  So  he  wrote  Pirckheimer,  July  19,  1523  (not  1522),  LB.  ep.  631. 

8  Hartfelder,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Geschichte  des  Oberrheins ,  N.  F.  viii,  1893, 
p.  27.  Zzvinglii  opera,  viii,  62,  note  2. 


328 


ERASMUS 


complying  with  it.1  The  Lutherans,  it  is  stated,  already 
hated  the  poor  scholar  so  fiercely  that  he  would  be 
compelled  to  leave  Germany,  though  he  knew  not  whither 
to  flee,  for  in  France  there  was  war  and  England  was 
disagreeable  to  him.  To  write  against  Luther  would  only 
excite  new  tumults;  on  the  other  hand,  to  write  for  him 
would  be  to  make  the  heretics  triumph  and  to  exalt  the 
author  to  a  pinnacle  as  the  god  of  Germany,  for  they 
regarded  him  as  the  only  obstacle  to  victory.  This 
letter  Filonardo  promised2  to  communicate  to  the  pon¬ 
tiff,  who,  however,  had  died  two  days  before  it  was 
written.  On  learning  this  Filonardo  undertook  to  deliver 
the  message  to  the  next  pope.3  The  same  impression  as 
that  conveyed  by  the  letter  to  Adrian  was  imparted  by 
the  writer  to  the  Roman  prelate  Sylvester  Prierias.  To 
him  the  humanist  declared  that  simply  by  doing  nothing 
for  the  innovators  he  broke  their  strength  more  than  did 
Aleander  with  all  his  frantic  measures.  “The  Lutheran 
faction  is  not  yet  extinct,”  he  added.  “Would  that  it 
were,  for  it  ruins  all  our  studies.”4  At  the  same  time  he 
wrote  to  the  powerful  Cardinal  Campeggio,  protesting 
that  he  was  not  a  Lutheran,  even  though,  as  he  proved 
by  inclosing  an  autograph  letter  from  the  Saxon  here- 
siarch,  the  latter  claimed  him  as  a  follower.5 

But  even  while  he  declined  to  compromise  himself  by 
writing  the  memorial  asked  for  by  Adrian  and  issuing  it 
under  his  own  name,  he  probably  had  much  to  do  with 
a  tract  called  Scrutinium  divines  scriptures  pro  concil¬ 
iations  dissentium  dogmatum ,  edited  at  just  this  time 
by  Conrad  Pellican.  Not  only  has  the  introductory 
epistle,  signed  by  Pellican,  been  attributed  to  Erasmus, 


1  Erasmus  to  a  Roman  Prelate,  September  16,  1523.  Nolhac:  Erasme  en 
Italie ,  1888,  no.  9,  p.  112.  The  addressee  is  plainly  Filonardo,  who  wrote  the 
letters  published  in  Forstemann-Giinther,  nos.  17,  18,  23,  24. 

2  September  23,  1523.  Forstemann-Giinther,  ep.  17. 

3  October  22,  K23.  Ibid ,  ep.  18. 

4  LB.  ep.  664. 

5  P.  Balan:  Monumenta  Reformationis  Luther  ana,  1884,  p.  305.  Either 
Luther’s  first  letter,  or  one  not  now  extant,  must  be  meant. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  329 

but  the  main  part  of  the  work,  published  under  the 
name  of  the  Franciscan  Satzger,  shows  strong  traces 
cf  the  humanist’s  collaboration.  This  irenic  recom¬ 
mended  moderation  and  conferences,  and  endeavored 
to  show  that  all  differences  might  be  reduced  to 
mere  misunderstandings.  The  pamphlet  did  not  have 
much  success,  for  Luther  judged  it  a  foolish  attempt 
to  reconcile  God  and  Belial,  the  Bible  and  the 
“sophists.”1 

From  other  quarters  the  humanist  was  constantly 
urged  to  take  up  arms  in  the  cause  of  the  Church.  Duke 
George  of  Albertine  Saxony,  after  hearing  the  Leipzig 
Debate,  had  turned  his  face  decisively  against  the  inno¬ 
vators  of  Wittenberg.  The  humanist  had  already  been 
in  communication  with  him  through  his  dedication  of 
Suetonius,  and  there  had  even  been  some  talk  of  his 
taking  a  position  at  the  University  of  Leipzig.  Six 
months  after  his  arrival  at  Basle  Erasmus  had  written 
explaining  the  causes  of  his  migration,2  and  bewailing 
his  illnesses  and  the  woes  of  the  time.  The  duke’s 
answer,  accompanied  by  two  books  of  Luther  sent  for  * 
the  purpose  of  refutation,  has  been  lost.  Erasmus 
thanked  him  for  the  books,  but  remarked  that  he  could 
not  read  anything  in  German.3  He  excused  himself  for 
not  writing  against  a  man  wdio  had  begun  to  preach 
with  the  applause  of  all,  and  expressed  fear  that  if  he 
were  crushed  abuses  might  again  become  rife.  He  was 
of  the  opinion  that  silence  was  the  best  remedy  and 
moreover  that  it  was  foolish  to  provoke  those  who 
could  not  be  conquered.  The  duke  received  this  re¬ 
sponse  and  other  similar  ones  with  great  coolness.4 

1  K.  Zickendraht:  “Fine  anonyme  Kundgebung  des  Erasmus,  1522,  im 
Lichte  seiner  Stellung  zur  Reformation,”  Zeitsch.  f.  Kirchengeschichte,  xxix, 
22  ff,  1908.  Enders,  no.  638. 

2  May  25,  1522.  Horawitz:  Erasmiana,  i,  no.  39. 

3  Gess:  Akten  und  Brief e  zur  Kirchenpolitik  Herzog  Georges  von  Sachsen ,  i, 
1904,  ep.  371 ;  LB.  ep.  635.  L.  C.  ep.  555. 

4  Erasmus  wrote  him  again  December  5th,  fearing  his  letter  of  September  3d 
was  lost  (Horawitz,  I,  40;  Gess,  408);  the  duke  replied  it  was  not  lost,  but  he 


330 


ERASMUS 


We  do  not  know  what  were  the  books  sent  by  George. 
Erasmus  mentions  reading  with  disapproval  the  Latin 
De  Abroganda  Missa ,  (published  1522)  and  of  hearing  of 
other  works  of  a  Hussite  nature.1  One  work  which  he 
read  and  thoroughly  liked  was  the  Tesseradecas 2  (pub¬ 
lished  1520)  a  book  of  spiritual  comfort.  Indeed,  even 
in  1523  he  seems  to  have  been  not  unfavorable  to  the 
Wittenberg  reformer.  To  Peter  Barbier,  at  that  time 
chaplain  of  Adrian  VI,  he  wrote  on  April  17,  1523 :3 
would  that  Luther’s  charges  against  the  tyranny,  base¬ 
ness,  and  avarice  of  the  Curia  were  not  true;  and  to 
Christopher,  Bishop  of  Basle,  he  expressed  the  hope 
that  the  Reformer  might  yet  be  recalled  to  the  ways  of 
peace.2 

Even  while  he  was  writing  this  Erasmus  was  much 
irritated  by  letters  of  Luther  disparaging  him.4  Hoping 
still  to  restrain  him  he  wrote  Spalatin,  on  March  12, 
1523:5 

I  have  never  ventured  to  judge  Luther’s  spirit,  but  I  have  often 
feared  that  the  appearance  of  so  much  arrogance  and  vituperation 
would  injure  the  cause  of  the  Gospel,  now  happily  reviving.  .  .  . 
Would  to  God  that  he  were  gentler! 

Erasmus  could  not  fail  to  be  influenced  by  the  course 
events  were  taking.  While  Luther  was  absent  at  the 
Wartburg  the  reforms  he  had  started  were  carried  on  at 
Wittenberg  with  increased  rapidity  by  Zwilling,  Carl- 
stadt,  and  some  men  of  Zwickau  who  called  themselves 
the  “Heavenly  Prophets.”  Their  innovations  included 


now  thought  it  no  longer  of  any  use  to  write  him  (Horawitz,  I,  41;  Gess,  No. 
441,  L.  C.  ep.  571).  He  wrote  again,  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  a  lost  letter, 
on  May  21,  1524.  (Gess,  No.  662.  L.  C.  ep.  626). 

1  To  Laurinus,  February  1,  1523.  Lond.  xxiii,  6.  L.  B.  ep.  650. 

2  1523.  Lond.  xxi,  8.  LB.  ep.  66 1. 

3  Lond.  xxi,  1.  LB.  ep.  653. 

4  J.  Fevynus  to  F.  Cranveld,  Bruges,  March  17,  1523.  Prinsen:  Geldenhauer j 
Collectanea,  p.  74.  Erasmus’s  “Dialogue”  is  here  mentioned  and  also  his 
resentment  at  a  letter  of  Luther  to  a  “canon  of  Erfurt.”  This  is  probably  a 
mistake.  One  of  the  letters  published  under  the  title,  “Judicium  D.  M. 
Lutheri  de  Erasmo,”  is  meant.  L.  C.  ep.  549. 

6  L.  C.  ep.  581. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  331 

not  only  religious  reforms  such  as  the  breaking  of  images 
in  churches,  the  abolition  of  fasting,  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy,  but  a  number  of  socialistic  measures  as  well,  and 
their  method  of  carrying  them  through,  by  mob  violence, 
was  more  objectionable  than  the  reforms  themselves. 
The  movement  spread  from  Wittenberg  to  other  parts 
of  Germany,  and  of  it  Erasmus  expressed  his  disapproval 
in  a  long  letter  to  Christopher,  Bishop  of  Basle,  dated 
Easter  Monday  (April  21),  1522,  and  published  in  the 
following  November.1  It  was  to  oppose  these  fanatics 
that  Luther  returned  to  Wittenberg  early  in  March, 
1522,  and  his  success  in  restoring  order  won  him  a  number 
of  adherents  throughout  Germany  and  perhaps  made 
Erasmus,  too,  think  better  of  him. 

The  peaceful  scholar  must  also  have  been  affected  by 
the  acts  of  the  inquisitors  in  the  Netherlands.  Hoch- 
straten,  the  Dominican  prosecutor  of  Cologne,  con¬ 
demned  his  books  during  the  summer  of  1522  and 
Erasmus  was  advised  of  the  fact  in  a  letter  by  Capito, 
of  August  17th,  in  which  his  friend  solemnly  warned  him 
of  the  danger  of  trying  to  keep  the  favor  of  both  parties.2 
A  sterner  warning  came  in  the  arrest  of  two  acquaint¬ 
ances,  Probst  and  Grapheus,  who  redeemed  their  lives 
only  by  a  solemn  recantation.3  But  the  inquisitors,  soon 
finding  men  of  less  pliable  stuff,  burned  two  of  them  at 
Brussels  on  July  1,  1523.  Erasmus  read  the  published 
account  of  their  fate,  without  being  able  to  decide  whether 
he  ought  to  deplore  it  or  not.  Even  if  in  substance  they 
were  right — such  was  his  idea — they  put  themselves  in 
the  wrong  by  stirring  up  tumults.  It  is  the  manner  that 
makes  all  the  difference  in  the  world.  Indeed,  he  added 
confidentially,  after  comment  on  the  auto-da-fe ,  “I 

1  Lond.  xxxi,  43.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  i,  p.  89. 

2  Forstemann  and  Gunther,  No.  9. 

3  They  were  arrested  in  December,  1521,  and  recanted  on  February  9,  1522. 
Kostlin-Kawerau,  i,  p.  604.  P.  Kalkoff:  Die  Anf'inge  der  Gegenreformation  in 
den  Niederlanden ,  ii,  1903,  pp.  61-69.  The  recantation  of  Grapheus  was 
described  to  Erasmus  in  a  letter  by  A.  Brugnarius,  November  4,  1522.  Forste- 
mann-Gunther,  ep.  10. 


332 


ERASMUS 


seem  to  myself  to  teach  almost  the  same  things  as 
Luther,  only  without  sedition  and  violence/’1 

More  than  to  any  other  one  person  Erasmus’s  final 
decision  to  break  with  the  Reformation  was  due  to 
Ulrich  von  Hutten,  the  brilliant  but  unstable  Alcibiades 
hitherto  sitting  at  the  feet  of  the  Dutch  Socrates2  in  an 
attitude  of  worshipful  respect.  The  character  and  fate 
of  this  wandering  knight  might  make  the  subject  of  a 
Shakespearean  tragedy,  for  the  hero,  not  without  a 
genuine  spark  of  nobility  in  his  turbulent  nature,  pre¬ 
cipitated  himself  through  his  own  fault  into  an  abyss  of 
utter  ruin.  The  ardor  with  which  he  apparently  embraced 
Luther’s  cause  spent  itself  in  such  futile  ragings  against 
the  Romanists  that  they  began  to  laugh  at  him  as  one 
whose  bark  was  worse  than  his  bite.3  With  savage  fury 
he  plotted  with  Sickingen  to  revenge  himself  by  starting 
a  holy  war  against  priests  and  prelates  throughout 
Germany.4  The  plan  which,  as  Erasmus’s  friend  Basil 
Amerbach  remarked,  was  worthy  of  a  Catiline,5  matured 
early  in  1522,  when  Sickingen  attacked  Treves,  only  to 
be  defeated  and  mortally  wounded  in  battle  on  May  7th. 
When  Hutten,  with  his  friend  Busch,  wandered  to  Basle,6 
on  the  way  committing  some  highway  robberies  to  relieve 
his  desperate  need  of  money,  Erasmus  refused  to  see 
him  on  the  pretext  that  Hutten’s  health  did  not  permit 

1  The  source  Erasmus  read  was  Historia  de  duobus  Augustiniensibus  ob 
Evangelii  doctrinam  exustis ,  published  at  Brussels  on  July  io,  1523.  See 
0.  Clemen:  Beitrdge  zur  Reformations geschichte,  1900,  i,  42.  Erasmus’s  letter 
on  the  subject  to  Charles  Utenhoven,  July  1,  1529,  Lond.  xxiv,  4,  LB.  ep.  1060. 
To  Zwingli,  August  31,  1523.  Zzvinglii  opera ,  ed.  Egli,  Finsler,  und  Kohler, 
viii,  1 14. 

2  Ante ,  p.  130  ff. 

3  Busch  to  Hutten,  May  5,  1521.  Hutteni  Operat  ed.  Bocking,  ii,  62;  L.  C. 
ep.  472. 

4  On  all  this  P.  Kalkoff:  Ulrich  von  Hutten  und  die  Reformation ,  1920. 

6  C.  Burckhardt-Biedermann:  Bonifacius  Amerbach  und  die  Reformation , 
1894,  pp.  149,  158  ff. 

6  He  was  at  Basle  on  November  28,  1522,  cf.  Zwinglis  JVerke,  ed.  Egli, 
Finsler  und  Kohler,  vii,  622,  and  Burckhardt-Biedermann,  loc.  cit.  Erasmus 
had  allowed  his  praise  of  Hutten  to  stand  in  the  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
of  1522,  in  a  note  to  1  Thes.  i:  2,  p.  516.  Cf.  “Catalogue  of  Lucubrations,” 
Allen,  i,  p.  27. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  333 

him  to  go  anywhere  without  a  stove,  whereas  his  own 
maladies  would  not  suffer  him  to  be  in  the  same  room 
with  one.1  Notwithstanding  the  polite  form  in  which 
he  couched  his  refusal,  the  insulted  gentlemen  resolved 
to  revenge  themselves.  Busch  announced  his  intention 
of  writing  against  the  humanist,2  and  Hutten  actually 
did  so,  after  trying  to  blackmail  the  man  attacked  into 
buying  his  manuscript.3 4  Though  his  friends  wished  to 
do  this,  Erasmus  refused  and  Hutten’s  pamphlet,  under 
the  title  of  An  Expostulation ,  was  accordingly  sent  to  the 
press.  In  the  meantime  the  aggrieved  scholar  had 
applied  to  the  Town  Council  of  Basle  protesting  against 
his  enemy’s  continued  presence  in  the  town  and  the 
swashbuckler  was  accordingly  expelled  in  the  middle  of 
January,  1523. 4  Fleeing  first  to  Miilhausen  and  then  to 
Zurich,  he  found  an  asylum  with  Zwingli.  His  ran¬ 
cor  had  found  ample  expression  in  his  Expostulation ,5 
which  rates  Erasmus  for  duplicity  and  cowardice,  under¬ 
taking  to  show  that  while  he  secretly  approved  all  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation  he  was  afraid  to  say  so. 
Gradually,  it  was  said,  his  attacks  on  Aleander,  Hoch- 
straten,  and  the  rest  had  changed  first  into  apology  and 
then  into  flattery.  Anything  would  be  better  than 
eternal  vacillation;  rather  an  open  enemy  than  a  false 
friend. 

The  savage  attack  cut  Erasmus  to  the  quick.  Never, 
he  wrote  to  a  friend,  would  he  have  believed  that  there 
could  be  so  much  inhumanity,  impudence,  vanity,  and 
virulence  in  one  book  as  there  was  in  the  Expostulation , 
and  that  written  by  one  whom  he  had  so  often  praised!6 
Just  as  peace  seemed  about  to  come,  he  elsewhere  com- 

1  Spongia ,  LB.  x,  1631  ff.  Erasmus  to  Hutten,  March  25,  1523  (not  1524) 
Lond.  xxvii,  3;  LB.  ep.  672. 

2  Luther  to  Spalatin,  March  1,  1523,  Enders,  iv.  p.  91;  Erasmus  to  Pirck- 
heimer,  August  29  (1523),  Lond.  xxx,  33. 

3  Booking,  ii,  179.  Kalkoff,  p.  506. 

4  Kalkoff,  p.  591. 

6  Booking,  ii,  180  ff. 

6  To  Pirckheimer,  July  19,  1523  (not  1522),  Lond.  xxx,  29;  LB.  ep.  631. 


334 


ERASMUS 


plained,  this  awful  storm  of  abuse  burst  and  clouded  the 
whole  sky.1  He  replied  with  uncommon  haste  in  a  work 
entitled,  A  Sponge  to  Wipe  off  Hutten  s  Aspersions , 
dedicated  to  Zwingli  because,  as  the  author  set  forth,  the 
antidote  should  go  to  the  same  quarter  where  the  poison 
was  brewed.2  This  suspicion  that  Zwingli  was  con¬ 
federate  with  Hutten  was  not  quite  groundless,  and  was 
given  color  by  the  fact  that  the  latter  found  a  shelter 
near  Zurich.  To  the  Town  Council  of  that  city  the 
humanist  wrote  a  letter  pointing  out  the  harm  done  to 
the  Gospel  by  the  refugee,  and  the  abusive  lies  he  had 
uttered  against  many  persons,  not  even  sparing  the 
pope  and  emperor,  and  he  asked  them  not  to  shelter  such 
a  rascal.3  The  missive  was  at  once  shown  to  Hutten, 
who  wrote  a  prompt  answer  to  it.4 

The  Sponge ,5  distinctly  a  work  of  personal  apology, 
takes  up  one  by  one  the  charges  brought,  and  proves  the 
writer’s  consistency.  He  has  attacked  only  the  vices  of 
the  Church,  wishing,  in  a  thoroughly  loyal  spirit,  to 
mend,  not  to  end  her.  It  would  be  more  honest  of 
Hutten  rather  to  help  the  pope  to  reform  than  to  make 
his  path  harder.  With  some  heat  the  author  defends  his 
cautious  position  by  alleging  examples  in  which  Christ 
had  apparently  dissembled  the  truth  or  suppressed  it  as 
inconvenient  to  be  spoken  at  all  seasons.  How  different 
is  the  manner  of  the  innovators!  They,  headed  by  the 
Wittenbergers,  stop  at  no  abusive  language  and  at  no 
scurrilous  manners,  though  more  could  be  accomplished 
by  gentleness  than  in  any  other  way.  Defending  his 
refusal  to  take  sides,  “I  am  a  lover  of  liberty,”  he  cries, 
“I  cannot  and  will  not  serve  a  party.” 

1  Allen,  i,  pp.  27  ff. 

2  To  Zwingli,  Zwinglis  Werke ,  viii,  1 19,  Lond.  xxx,  52.  Cf.  Zwinglis  Werke. 
viii,  93.  Letter  of  Hutten  to  Zwingli. 

3  E.  Egli:  Aktensammlung  zur  Ziircher  Reformation ,  1879,  no.  565  (wrongly 
put  by  Egli  in  1524),  August  10,  1523.  The  same  in  Booking:  Hutteni 
Opera ,  ii,  256  f;  and  Hess:  Erasmus,  ii,  572. 

4  Hess,  ii,  574. 

5  Spongia  adversus  Aspergines  Hutteni,  LB.,  x,  1631  ff. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  335 

When  the  work  came  from  Froben’s  press  in  the  sum¬ 
mer  of  1523  Hutten  was  a  broken  man.  Having  abetted 
Sickengen’s  rash  rebellion,  the  defeat  and  death  of  the 
captain  left  him  alone  and  discredited.  Seeking  a  place 
to  die  in,  as  his  enemy  recognized,1  he  had  turned  to 
Switzerland  and,  crushed  by  disappointment  and  disease, 
repenting  having  written  and  published  the  Expostula¬ 
tion ,  he  breathed  his  last  in  an  obscure  corner  of  the 
world  on  August  29th.2  This  tragic  event,  though  it  did 
not  prevent  three  thousand  copies  of  the  Sponge  from 
being  printed,3  deprived  that  work,  as  its  author  regret¬ 
fully  admitted,  of  much  of  its  welcome.  He  assured 
the  public  that  he  prayed  for  Hutten’s  soul,  and  offered 
an  apology4  for  publishing  his  book  at  all,  though  one 
which  perhaps  did  not  much  mend  matters.  He  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  he  had  never  reproached  his 
enemy  with  “his  military  life,  not  to  use  a  w^orse  term,” 
nor  with  his  debts,  nor  with  his  vices,  “which  even  his 
shameful  disease  could  never  make  him  stop.”  In  the 
same  tone  of  apology  he  wrote  Melanchthon:  “When 
that  Thraso,  pox  and  all,  sought  my  house  as  a  place  in 
which  to  die,  I  refused,  and  then  he  begged  the  same 
from  Zwingli,  as  the  latter  wrote  me.”  Again,  the  man’s 
perfidy  in  publishing  letters  unauthorized  is  alleged  as  a 
reason  for  having  broken  with  him.5  The  battle  was  taken 
up  by  Otto  Brunsfels,  who  wrote  a  reply  to  the  Sponge .6 


1  Erasmus  to  Melanchthon,  September  6,  1523  (not  1524),  Lond.  xix,  1 1 3 ; 
LB.  ep.  703. 

2  To  C.  Goclen,  September  25,  1523,  Lond.  xxx,  10.  Beatus  Rhenanus  to  a 
Friend,  October  27,  1523.  Zeitsch.  f.  d.  Geschichte  des  Oberrheins ,  xxi,  1906, 

p.  48. 

3  To  J.  Faber,  November  21,  1523;  Horawitz:  Erasmiana,  ii,  ep.  5;  LB. 
ep.  658. 

4  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations,  Allen,  i,  pp.  27  ff. 

8  September  6,  1524.  Lond.  xix,  113;  LB.  ep.  703.  L.  C.  ep.  633. 

6  Othonis  Brunsfelsii  pro  U.  Hutteno  defuncto.  .  .  .Responsio,  Bocking,  ii, 
325  ff.  K.  Hartfelder:  “Otto  Brunsfels  als  Verteidiger  Huttens,”  Zeit- 
schriftf.  d.  Geschichte  des  Oberrheins,  viii,  1893,  pp.  565  ff.  There  is  at  Cornell  a 
copy  of  the  first  edition  of  the  Sponge  with  the  autograph,  “Mathias  Heros, 
philosophiae  professor,  1523.”  Matthew  Held,  late  vice-chancellor  under 
Charles  V,  is  meant. 


ERASMUS 


336 

The  skirmish  with  Hutten  preluded  a  greater  battle 
with  Luther.  Inevitably,  as  two  great  nations  with  in¬ 
terests  in  the  same  spheres  drift  into  opposition  and  then 
into  war,  the  two  greatest  religious  leaders  of  the  early 
sixteenth  century  felt  more  and  more  keenly  their  rivalry 
and  the  necessity  of  defining  their  differences  in  public 
argument.  For,  while  Erasmus  advocated,  although 
without  violence,  many  of  the  practical  reforms  pushed 
by  Luther,  his  spirit  was  different.  The  Saxon  was  a 
friar  and  a  schoolman;  with  all  his  denunciation  of  the 
“sophists”  of  scholasticism,  he  was  their  kinsman  in 
that  he  asked  the  same  questions  as  did  they,  even 
though  he  gave  those  questions  new  answers.  But  a 
man’s  interests  reveal  themselves  more  in  the  questions 
which  he  asks  than  in  the  answers  he  gives;  as  long  as 
the  dogmatic  predilection  was  fundamental  it  mattered 
little  that  the  Reformer  strongly  objected  to  some  of 
the  particular  dogmas  of  his  predecessors.  Salvation, 
urgent  and  doubtful,  depended,  he  thought,  on  knowing 
the  absolute  truth. 

But  to  seek  the  absolute  truth,  and  still  more  to  find  it, 
brands  the  seeker  as  a  child  or  a  dogmatist.  It  would 
never  have  occurred  to  Erasmus  to  put  it  in  exactly  that 
way,  but  he  did  see  quite  clearly  the  difficulties  in  arriv¬ 
ing  at  the  truth  in  any  matter,  most  of  all  in  the  deepest 
problems  of  philosophy.  To  his  temperament  the  all- 
important  matter  in  religion  was  the  life;  beliefs  were 
interesting,  even  rather  important,  but  they  were  subor¬ 
dinate  to  the  moral  issue.  It  is  really  surprising  how 
clearly  the  Reformers  themselves  saw  this  difference. 
In  1521  a  student  at  Wittenberg  wrote  a  friend  that 
Erasmus  was  not  much  thought  of  there  because  his 
Enchiridion  had  made  Plato  rather  than  Christ  his  model, 
had  mistranslated  parts  of  Paul’s  epistles,  and  showed 
less  courage  than  Luther.1 

And  yet  the  very  fact  that  the  two  were  able  to  join 

1  Briefivechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus,  hg.  von  Horawitz  und  Hartfelder,  1886, 
p.  281.  Albert  Burer  to  Beatus  Rhenanus,  Wittenberg,  June  30,  1521. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  337 

issues  proves  that  they  were  nearly  allied  in  interest. 
Men  with  totally  different  spheres  of  action  let  one 
another  alone.  There  was  no  battle  between  science  and 
capitalism,  between  Copernicus  and  Fugger.  As  far  as 
there  was  antagonism  between  art  and  religion  it  was 
silent,  half-unconscious;  only  as  an  afterthought  did 
Michelangelo  come  under  the  displeasure  of  the  Church. 
Given,  then,  a  community  of  interest  and  a  divergence 
of  type  between  humanist  and  Reformer,  it  was  natural 
that  the  battle  should  be  joined  on  precisely  the  issue 
taken,  that  of  the  free  will,  for  both  to  the  dogmatic  and 
to  the  ethical  mind  this  question  is  fundamental.  To 
talk  of  morality  without  freedom  of  choice  is  absurd,^ 
said  Erasmus;  to  speak  of  our  own  powers  to  attain  grace 
and  merit  apart  from  God’s  eternal  decree  is  impious, 
pontificated  Luther.  “All  argument  shows  that  our  wills 
are  bound,”  remarked  Doctor  Johnson,  “but  we  know 
that  we  are  free  and  that  settles  the  matter.”  So  it 
does  for  the  man  who  accepts  his  own  feelings  as  decisive; 
for  the  more  deeply  logical  mind  the  arguments  count. 

The  question  had  been  a  live  one  in  the  Church  ever 
since  the  controversy  of  Augustine  and  Pelagius.  The 
saint  and  philosopher  of  Hippo  had  for  the  time  carried 
all  before  him,  establishing  as  orthodox  the  position  that 
God  predestined  everything  and  that,  as  far  as  merit 
went,  the  human  will  was  absolutely  impotent  to  do 
aught  but  sin.  However,  the  common  sense  of  mankind 
rebelled  against  the  assertion  of  the  bondage  of  the  will, 
and  throughout  the  Middle  Ages  the  Church  really  held  a 
semi-Pelagian  position,  by  which  it  was  hoped  that  God’s 
foreknowledge  and  foreordination  might  be  reconciled 
with  man’s  freedom.  Aquinas  may  be  presumed  to  de¬ 
fine  adequately  the  orthodox  view  in  the  following  words  i1 

As  predestination  includes  the  will  to  confer  grace  and  glory,  so 
reprobation  includes  the  will  to  permit  some  one  to  fall  into  sin  and 
to  bring  the  penalty  of  damnation  for  sin.  .  .  .  Reprobation  is  not 
the  cause  of  the  present  fault,  but  it  is  the  cause  of  abandonment  by 

1  Summa  Theologice ,  pars  I,  qu.  22,  arts.  3-5. 


ERASMUS 


338 

God.  Yet  it  is  the  cause  of  future  eternal  punishment.  But  the  sin 
comes  from  the  free  will  of  him  who  is  reprobated  and  abandoned 
by  grace.  .  .  . 

The  effect  of  divine  foreknowledge  is  not  only  that  a  certain  thing 
should  happen  in  a  particular  way,  but  that  it  should  happen  either 
contingently  or  necessarily.  That,  therefore,  happens  infallibly  and 
necessarily  which  divine  foreknowledge  disposes  to  happen  infalli¬ 
bly  and  necessarily,  and  that  happens  contingently  which  the  rea¬ 
son  of  divine  foreknowledge  so  conceives  that  it  should  happen 
contingently.  .  .  . 

No  one  has  been  so  insane  as  to  say  that  merits  were  the  cause  of 
divine  predestination  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  God’s  pre¬ 
destinating  act. 

St.  Thomas  felt  the  need  of  exonerating  God  from  the 
charge  of  punishing  men  for  inevitable  evils;  he  labored 
not  a  little  to  show  that  though  God  might  be  the  cause 
of  the  evil  arising  from  the  corruption  of  things,  he  was 
not  the  cause  of  evil  arising  from  defect  of  action.1 
Finally,  after  having  asserted  strongly  God’s  power  of 
predestination  he  came  out  plainly  with  the  statement, 
so  difficult  to  reconcile  with  this  position:  “Man  has 
free  will;  otherwise  counsel,  exhortation,  precept,  pro¬ 
hibition,  reward  and  punishment  would  all  be  in  vain.”2 
It  was  this  last  statement  that  was  most  emphasized  for 
the  common  man.3 

The  question  again  attained  prominence  in  the  fifteenth 
and  early  sixteenth  centuries.  Lorenzo  Valla,  so  much 
studied  by  the  Dutch  humanist,  had  written  a  work  in 
favor  of  free  will,4  preferring  to  doubt  God’s  omnipotence 
rather  than  his  goodness.  At  the  same  time  he  tried  to 
reconcile  free  will  for  men  with  a  doctrine  of  predestina¬ 
tion  and  foreknowledge  of  God.  When  published  by  the 
Reformer  Vadian  in  1518,  this  treatise  came  to  the 
notice  of  the  Wittenberg  professors,  and  the  author’s 
“stoical  opinion”  was  rejected  by  Melanchthon.  Luther’s 

1  Qu.  49,  art.  2. 

2  Qu.  83,  art.  1. 

3  Dante:  Purgatorio ,  canto  1 6,  Paradiso,  5.  See  also  the  fourteenth  century 
poem,  The  Pearl,  ed.  by  C.  S.  Osgood,  p.  xxxix,  and  C.  F.  Brown  in  Publications 
of  the  Modern  Language  Association,  xix,  1 1 5  ff. 

4  E.  Maier:  Die  Willensfreiheit  bei  L.  Valla.  Bonn  Dissertation,  1911. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  339 

praise  of  a  work  taking  the  opposite  side  of  the  question 
must  be  understood  as  merely  relative,  an  indirect  way 
of  scoring  Erasmus.1  The  Italian  skeptic,  Pomponazzi, 
had  also  written  on  the  subject  in  1520,  though  his  work 
was  not  published  until  1557. 2 

When  Erasmus  took  the  offensive  the  choice  of  this 
subject  was  motived  partly  by  his  wish  not  to  interfere 
with  any  of  the  practical  reforms  undertaken  by  Luther, 
with  many  of  which  he  was  in  sympathy,  and  partly  by 
the  fact  that  this  dogma  lay  at  the  very  heart  of  the 
Protestant  system,  being,  in  fact,  no  more  than  the 
reverse  side  of  the  famous  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  only.  Where  everything  is  performed  by  the  grace 
of  God  there  is  nothing  left  for  the  human  will.  In  fact, 
the  Wittenberg  professor  was  so  far  from  strict  deter¬ 
minism  that  he  allowed  man  free  choice  in  a  lower  sphere, 
so  to  speak,  than  that  of  religion.  We  can,  he  said,  go 
in  and  out  as  we  like,  milk  the  cow  or  not  do  it;  our  wills 
can  even,  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  put  it,  “work  a 
certain  civil  righteousness. ”  The  point  was  that  this 
had  not  the  slightest  effect  on  salvation.  It  was  on  this 
issue  that  he  had  first  detected  heresy  in  the  humanist; 
in  previously  cited  epistles  of  1516  and  1517  he  had 
criticized  the  editor  of  the  Greek  Testament  for  mis¬ 
understanding  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  nature  of 
sin  and  for  undervaluing  grace.  His  own  opinion  was 
early  expressed  in  his  lectures,  in  his  Resolutions ,  and  at 
the  Heidelberg  Debate  in  April,  1518.  He  had  there 
maintained  the  thesis  that  “free  will,  after  the  fall,  was 
only  a  name,  and  that  when  a  man  acted  according  to 
his  own  being  he  sinned  mortally. ”  This  was  reported 
by  Martin  Bucer,  a  hearer,  to  Beatus  Rhenanus;  the 
report  was  probably  forwarded  by  the  recipient  to  his 
great  friend.3 

1  Tischreden ,  Weimar,  i,  no.  259. 

2  De  Fato,  Libero  Jr  bitrio,  Predestinatione.  Cf.  Christie:  Pomponatius, 

p.  149. 

3  Briefivechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus,  ed.  Horawitz  und  Hartfelder,  1886, 

p.  113. 


340 


ERASMUS 


When  the  bull  Exsurge  Domine  (1520)  condemned  the 
opinion  on  free  will  quoted  above,  Luther  defended  it 
at  length,  citing  Augustine  and  many  biblical  texts  to 
prove  his  point.1  This  Refutation  of  the  Bull  was  in  turn 
refuted  by  Bishop  Fisher  of  Rochester  in  a  tract2  from 
which  the  Dutchman  borrowed  a  good  deal.  Denial  of 
free  will  was  mentioned  by  Aleander,  in  his  speech  before 
the  Diet  of  Worms,  as  a  cardinal  heresy  of  the  Saxon.3 
Melanchthon,  however,  adopted  his  friend’s  position 
and  expressed  it  still  more  clearly,  if  possible,  in  his 
Loci  Communes ,  a  text-book  of  theology  printed  in  1521. 4 
Carlstadt  also  adopted  his  friend’s  position  and  defended 
it  at  great  length  at  the  Leipzig  Debate  with  Eck.5 
This  also  came  to  the  notice  of  Erasmus. 

His  opinion,  at  an  early  date,  is  doubtless  reflected  in 
the  words  of  Capito,  in  some  sort  his  emissary,  who  on 
a  visit  to  Wittenberg  on  September  30,  1521,  told 
Melanchthon  that  Luther  overemphasized  grace  and  the 
bondage  of  the  will.6  “The  Lutherans  call  me  a 
Pelagian,”7  Erasmus  reported  as  early  as  1522;  but,  on 
consulting  theologians  about  his  interpretation  of  Romans 
ix  in  his  New  Testament  and  in  his  Paraphrase ,  he  learned 
that  they  approved  his  position  except  only  that  they 
thought  he  attributed  rather  too  much  to  the  freedom  of 
the  will.8  In  a  letter  to  Zwingli  he  enumerated  as 
Luther’s  three  chief  errors,  (1)  his  designation  of  all  good 
works  as  mortal  sin,  (2)  his  denial  of  free  will,  (3)  justi¬ 
fication  by  faith  only;  but  he  added  that  he  had  refused 

1  Refutatio  omnium  articulorum ,  December,  1520;  Luthers  Werke ,  Weimar 
vii,  94* 

2  Assertionis  Lutheri  Confutatio,  analyzed  by  Zickendraht:  Der  Streit 
zwischen  Erasmus  und  Luther  uber  die  Willensfreiheit ,  1909,  pp.  183  ff. 

3  J.  Paquier:  Aleandre ,  p.  200. 

*  Corpus  Reformatorum,  xxi,  86  IF. 

6  0.  Seitz:  Der  authentische  Text  der  Leipziger  Disputation ,  1903,  pp.  14-54; 
219-247. 

6  Corpus  Reformatorum ,  i,  462. 

7  To  Glapion,  1522,  LB.  ep.  645. 

8  To  Pirckheimer,  1522,  Lond.  xxx,  28.  LB.  ep.  618.  Cf.  also  Erasmus’s 
defense  of  his  position  in  his  letter  to  Marcus  Laurinus,  Lond.  xxiii,  6,  LB.  ep. 
650.  February  1,  1523. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  341 

all  invitations  from  the  emperor,  the  pope,  and  various 
kings,  to  write  against  the  Wittenberg  professor.1  Doubt¬ 
less  his  ideas  were  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  denial  of 
free  will  was  mentioned  as  Luther’s  fundamental  error 
in  a  letter  of  Henry  VIII  to  Duke  George  of  January  20, 
1523,  and  in  the  latter’s  answer  of  May  8. 2 

In  July,  1522,  was  published  a  pamphlet  containing 
Melanchthon’s  “Statement  Concerning  Erasmus  and 
Luther,”  and  two  letters  of  the  latter  about  the  former, 
one  to  Capito,  January  17,  1522,  and  one  to  Borner  or 
Cubito,  of  May  28,  1522;3  this  last  containing  a  very 
disparaging  estimate  of  the  humanist’s  theological 
abilities: 

On  predestination  he  knows  less  than  the  sophists  of  the  schools. 
.  .  .  He  is  not  formidable  in  such  matters,  for  truth  is  more  powerful 
than  eloquence.  ...  I  will  not  provoke  Erasmus,  nor,  if  provoked 
once  and  again,  will  I  hit  back.  Yet  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  he 
would  do  wisely  to  direct  the  force  of  his  rhetoric  against  me,  for  I 
fear  that  he  would  not  find  Luther  another  Lefevre  d'Etaples  con¬ 
cerning  whom  he  boasts  that  all  congratulate  him  on  his  victory. 

In  vain  did  mutual  friends  try  to  keep  such  letters  from 
coming,  to  the  knowledge  of  the  humanist;  in  vain  did 
they  warn  the  writer  of  them  to  be  more  careful.4  When 
the  Wittenberger  continued  to  pen  even  harsher  judg¬ 
ments,  they  were  at  once  published.  Such  was  a  letter 
to  Pellican  at  Basle,  dated  October  1,  1523,  expressing 
regret  that  Hutten  should  have  “expostulated”  and  that 
Erasmus  should  have  “wiped  off  his  aspersions  with  a 
sponge,” 

for  if  this  is  erasing  with  a  sponge,  wThat  is  cursing  and  reviling?  .  .  . 
I  see  how  far  the  man  is  from  the  knowledge  of  Christian  things,  and 

1  Zzvinglii  opera ,  viii,  114  ff.  August  31,  1523. 

2  Zickendraht,  pp.  15  f. 

3  Published  under  the  title,  Iudicium  D.  Martini  Lutheri  de  Erasmo,  sine 
loco  et  anno;  cf.  Enders,  iii,  p.  276.  L.  C.  ep.  549.  Zickendraht,  p.  10. 

4  Luther’s  letter,  just  quoted,  was  forwarded  by  Ambrose  Blaurer  to  his 
brother  Thomas,  begging  him  to  see  that  it  was  shown  to  Erasmus.  Thomas, 
however,  returned  the  letter,  warning  Luther  to  be  more  careful.  Briejzvechsel 
der  Blaurer,  ed.  T.  Schiess,  1908  ff,  i,  52. 


342 


ERASMUS 


therefore  would  easily  suffer  him  to  call  me  any  name  he  likes,  as 
long  as  he  does  not  touch  the  cause,  for  I  propose  to  defend  that 
alone,  and  not  my  life  or  character.1 

Erasmus  knew  these  expressions  and  of  course  resented 
them.  He  complained  bitterly  of  the  “private  letters 
published  in  hatred  of  me  by  those  who  fear  to  rage 
against  the  pope  and  emperor.”2 

On  June  20,  1523,  Luther  wrote  to  CEcolampadius  at 
Basle  :3 

I  feel  the  pricks  that  Erasmus  gives  me;  yet,  as  he  dissimulates  his 
hostility  and  does  not  call  himself  my  foe,  I  also  pretend  that  I  do 
not  notice  his  guile,  although  I  understand  it  more  deeply  than  he 
is  aware.  He  has  done  what  he  was  called  to  do;  he  has  introduced 
the  study  of  the  tongues  and  called  us  from  those  other  godless 
studies.  Perhaps,  like  Moses,  he  will  die  in  the  land  of  Moab,  for  to 
come  to  the  promised  land  of  better  pursuits  is  not  his  lot. 

This  letter  was  not  published,  but  was  shown  by  its 
recipient  to  its  subject,  who  spoke  of  it  to  Zwingli  on 
August  31st4  and  in  an  epistle  to  John  Faber5  saying 
that  the  Wittenberg  Reformer  had  vehemently  execrated 
the  Sponge  and  had  recently  written  to  CEcolampadius 
that  Erasmus  was  a  Moses  to  be  buried  in  the  wilderness. 
“This,”  he  concludes,  “is  the  prelude  to  war.” 

With  a  heavy  heart  he  at  once  began  the  composition 
of  the  Diatribe  on  the  Free  Will ,  though  he  feared  that  he 
could  not  publish  it  unless  he  should  leave  Germany.6 
As  an  encouragement,  the  new  pope,  Clement  VII, 
whom  he  had  known  personally,  sent  him  a  present  of 
two  hundred  florins;  this  he  only  consented  to  take  on 
the  express  understanding  that  it  was  a  reward  for  the 

1  Published  in  a  work  entitled  Indicium  Erasmi  Alberi  de  Spongia  Erasmx 
Roterodami,  Enders,  iv,  p.  233 ;  L.  C.  ep.  600.  Erasmus  Alber  was  the  author’s 
real  name,  though  he  of  Rotterdam  suspected  that  it  was  a  pseudonym  to 
conceal  Busch.  Lond.  xxx,  36;  LB.  ep.  684. 

2  In  his  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations  (1524),  Allen,  i,  pp.  28,  32. 

3  Enders,  iv,  163.  L.C.  ep.  591. 

4  Zwinglis  Werke ,  viii,  ep.  315. 

6  Horawitz:  Erasmiana,  ii,  no.  5  (p.  601)  November  21,  1523. 

6  To  Henry  VIII,  September  4,  1523,  Lond.  xx,  35;  LB.  ep.  657. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  343 

Paraphrases.1  Nevertheless,  early  in  1524,  some  months 
before  it  was  published,  he  sent  manuscript  drafts  of  the 
work  to  Clement2  and  to  his  old  patron,  Henry  VIII.3 

News  of  the  attack,  received  at  Rome  with  joy,  created 
not  a  little  dismay  throughout  Germany.  Popular  opin¬ 
ion  was  expressed  in  a  short  tract  entitled,  “Dialogue 
between  a  Peasant,  Belial,  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  and 
Dr.  John  Faber,  briefly  showing  the  true  reason  that 
induced  Erasmus  and  Faber  to  deny  God’s  Word.”4  In 
this  Belial  is  represented  as  rejoicing  that  he  has  “seduced 
not  only  some  small,  simple,  worthless,  apostate,  desper¬ 
ate  men  to  deny  the  truth,  but  has  also  so  tempted  and 
moved  the  master  of  beautiful  Latin,  that  he  neither 
sees  nor  understands  what  he  has  formerly  said,  written, 
and  published  abroad.”  Erasmus  is  then  made  to  chime 
in,  all  complacency  because  he  “has  won  and  obtained 
more  favor  from  the  pope,  cardinals,  bishops,  and  other 
princes,  than  Luther  and  his  fellows  have  done,  who 
have  got  nothing  but  hatred,  odium,  and  persecution 
from  the  same  quarters.” 

Deep  concern  took  possession  of  the  Reformers  when 
they  heard  of  the  captain  marching  against  them. 
Capito  had  long  ago  foreseen  and  deprecated  such  a 
catastrophe,5  while  Luther  keenly  appreciated  the  harm 

1  On  January  5,  1524,  John  Haner  wrote  Clement  from  Nuremberg,  sug¬ 
gesting  that  a  douceur  for  Erasmus  would  be  advisable;  Clement  sent  it  with 
a  letter  of  April  3,  1524.  P.  Balan:  Monumenta  Reformationis  Lutherans, 
pp.  319,  324.  Erasmus  wrote  Pirckheimer  of  it  on  July  21,  1524;  Lond.  xxx, 
36;  LB.  ep.  684.  His  personal  acquaintance  with  Clement  is  spoken  of  in  a 
letter  of  1523  to  C.  Stadion,  Bishop  of  Basle,  LB.  ep.  661.  Cf.  also  letter  of 
August  26,  1527,  Zeitschrift  fur  historische  Theologie ,  xxix,  1859,  p.  595. 

2  Ennio  Filonardo  to  Erasmus,  Rome,  April  14,  15,  1524.  Forstemann- 
Giinther,  epp.  23,  24. 

3  Lond.  xx,  49;  LB.  ep.  660,  dated  1523;  according  to  the  old  style,  fre¬ 
quently  employed  by  Erasmus,  of  beginning  the  year  at  Easter  or  on  Lady 
Day  (March  25th),  this  might  mean  any  time  before  April,  1524. 

4  Gesprackbiichlein  von  einem  Bauern ,  Belial ,  Erasmo ,  und  Doctor  Johann 
Fabri.  Flugschriften  aus  den  ersten  Jahren  der  Reformation,  hg.  von  O.  Clemen, 
Band  i,  Heft  8,  1906.  The  date  of  this  pamphlet  is  given  as  soon  after  the 
Recess  of  Nuremberg  of  April  18,  1524. 

5  Baum:  Capito  und  Butzer,  i860,  p.  84,  quoting  a  letter  of  Capito  to 
Erasmus  dated  June  5,  1522. 


344 


ERASMUS 


that  the  attack  would  do  his  cause.  In  order  to  intim¬ 
idate  an  opponent  rated  as  a  coward,  he  at  once  indited 
the  following  insulting  missive:1 

Since  we  see  that  the  Lord  has  not  given  you  courage  and  sense 
to  assail  those  monsters  openly  and  confidently  with  us,  we  are  not 
the  men  to  exact  what  is  beyond  your  power  and  measure.  .  .  . 
We  only  fear  that  you  may  be  induced  by  our  enemies  to  fall  upon 
our  doctrine  with  some  publication,  in  which  case  we  should  be 
obliged  to  resist  you  to  your  face.  .  .  .  Hitherto  I  have  controlled 
my  pen  as  often  as  you  prick  me,  and  have  written  in  letters  to 
friends,  which  you  have  seen,  that  I  would  control  it  until  you  publish 
something  openly.  For  although  you  will  not  side  with  us,  and 
although  you  injure  and  make  skeptical  many  pious  men  by  your 
impiety  and  hypocrisy,  yet  I  cannot  and  do  not  accuse  you  of  willful 
obstinacy.  .  .  .  We  have  fought  long  enough;  we  must  take 
care  not  to  eat  each  other  up.  This  would  be  a  terrible  catastrophe, 
as  neither  of  us  wishes  to  harm  religion,  and  without  judging  each 
other  both  may  do  good. 

Erasmus’s  answer,  dated  May  8th,2  asserted  that  he 
was  not  less  zealous  for  the  cause  of  religion  than  were 
those  who  arrogated  to  themselves  the  name  “evangel¬ 
ical,”  and  that  he  had  as  yet  written  nothing  against 
Luther,  though  had  he  done  so  he  would  have  won  the 
applause  of  the  great  ones  of  the  world.  He  showed 
Luther’s  letter  to  CEcolampadius  in  order  to  secure  his 
good  offices  as  a  peace-maker.3  Melanchthon  and  Jonas 
were  also  eager  to  intercede,  though  the  former  dreaded 
the  odium  that  a  personal  interview  would  excite.4  To 
Pirckheimer  Erasmus  confided:  “Martin  Luther  wrote 
me  kindly,  sending  the  letter  by  Camerarius.  I  did  not 
dare  to  reply  with  equal  kindness  on  account  of  the 
sycophants,”5  and  again:  “Luther  wrote  me  in  his  own 
manner,  promising  to  overlook  my  weakness  if  I  would 
not  write  expressly  against  his  dogmas.  I  answered 
briefly  but,  as  is  my  habit,  courteously.  There  is  now 

1  Enders,  iv,  319;  L.  C.  ep.  620.  Dateless,  to  be  put  about  April  15,  1524. 

2  Enders,  iv,  335;  L.  C.  ep.  624. 

3  CEcolampadius  to  Luther,  May  8,  1524;  Enders,  iv,  339. 

4  Stromer  to  Erasmus,  May  1,  1524;  Enthoven,  ep.  25.  Erasmus  to  Pirck¬ 
heimer,  June  3  (1524),  LB.  App.  ep.  327.  Zickendraht,  p.  20. 

6  July  21,  1524.  Lond.  xxx,  36.  LB.  ep.  684. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  345 

present  a  Baron  Hieroslaus,  ambassador  of  the  king  of 
Poland,  a  sincere  friend  of  mine  and  very  hostile  to 
Luther,  as  is  his  king.”1 

Apropos  of  the  visit  of  this  nobleman,  Hieroslaus 
Laski2  who  forever  remained  his  faithful  friend  and  dis¬ 
ciple,  Erasmus  tells  a  long  story  in  his  Catalogue  of 
Lucubrations  (September,  1524). 3 4 

I  took  Laski  to  my  library;  he  asked  if  Luther  were  learned; 

I  replied  in  the  affirmative.  He  then  asked  what  I  thought  of  the 
Reformer’s  dogmas,  and  received  the  reply  that  they  were  beyond 
my  power  to  judge,  but  that  he  of  Wittenberg  had  certainly  taught 
much  well  and  attacked  abuses  strongly.  He  then  asked  what  books 
of  Luther  I  most  approved.  I  replied  the  Commentaries  on  the  Psalms 
and  the  Tesseradecasf  adding  that  these  were  approved  even  by  those 
that  condemned  the  rest,  “although  even  in  these,”  I  said,  “he  has 
mixed  some  of  his  own  doctrine.”  He  repeated  “his  own”  and  smiled. 
This  was  our  first  talk  on  Luther,  in  which  neither  he  clearly  saw 
my  mind  nor  I  his.  When  he  visited  me  again,  by  chance  there  was 
a  recent  letter  of  Luther’s  lying  on  the  table  among  my  papers. 
From  this  he  snatched  a  few  words  at  a  glance  which  showed  him 
that  Luther  seemed  to  think  meanly  of  me.  While  we  were  talking 
he  tried  to  steal  the  letter.  Pretending  not  to  notice  what  he  had 
done,  I  took  it  from  his  hands  and  replaced  it  on  the  table.  .  .  . 
Later  he  confessed  he  had  tried  to  steal  it.  I  asked  him  why.  He 
said  that  many  would  persuade  his  king  that  Erasmus  was  in  league  * 
with  Luther.  “I  will  inform  you,”  said  I;  “I  will  give  you  his 
autograph,  lest  he  should  pretend  that  it  is  a  copy,  and  I  will  add 
two  others,5  of  which  one  has  recently  been  printed  at  Strassburg, 
the  other  I  know  not  where,  in  which  he  speaks  hatefully  of  me.” 
“By  these,”  I  said,  “you  can  show  the  emperor  (for  he  was  ambassa¬ 
dor  to  the  emperor)  that  my  relationship  with  Luther  is  not  so  close 
as  some  declare.”  Then  he  asked  me  if  I  were  going  to  write  against 
Luther,  but  I  said  I  had  no  time.  Then  he  told  me  that  the  king 
of  Poland  was  so  hostile  to  Luther  that  he  confiscated  all  the  property 
of  any  man  in  whose  house  was  found  a  book  of  Luther.  I  disapproved 
this  cruelty  and  also  this  searching  of  people’s  houses.  Departing, 
Laski  gave  me  a  silver  vase,  which  I  would  have  refused,  but  he 
pressed  it  on  me. 

1  June  3  (1524),  LB.  App.  ep.  327. 

2  Miaskowski:  Die  Korrespondenz  des  Erasmus  mit  Polen ,  1901. 

3  Allen,  i,  31  ff. 

4  Erasmus  Latinizes  the  name  “opus  de  quattuordecim  spectris.” 

5  I.  e.  those  to  Borner,  May  28,  1522,  and  to  Pellican,  October  1,  1523. 


ERASMUS 


346 

Shortly  after  this  he  published  his  Diatribe  on  the  Free 
Will .  The  composition  of  it  had  been  completed  on 
May  13th,1  as  was  announced  to  Luther  two  days  later 
by  CEcolampadius.  At  first  the  author  thought  of  keep¬ 
ing  it  in  manuscript,  but  by  July  21st,2  he  decided  to 
publish  it,  as  the  rumor  of  his  having  written  it  was  out 
and  people  might  think  it  worse  than  it  was.  “For  I 
treat  the  matter  with  such  moderation  that  I  know  even 
Luther  will  not  be  angry. ”  His  moderation  he  intended 
to  show  even  in  the  title,  for  at  that  time  and  in  Greek 
“diatribe”  meant  “conversation”  or  “discussion,”  and 
not,  as  it  now  does  in  English,  “bitter  criticism,”  or 
“invective.”  Just  as  the  work  saw  the  light  he  wrote 
elsewhere:3 4 


I  have  never  renounced  the  friendship  of  anyone  either  because 
he  was  inclined  to  Luther  or  because  he  was  against  him.  For  I  am 
of  such  a  nature  that  I  could  love  even  a  Jew,  were  he  only  a  pleasant 
companion  and  friend  and  did  not  blaspheme  Christ  in  my  presence. 
Moreover  I  think  courtesy  more  effective  in  discussion. 

Thus  conceived,  the  Discussion  of  Free  Will 4  came  from 
the  press  of  Froben  in  September,  1524. 5  The  original 
intention  to  dedicate  it  to  Wolsey  was  given  up  by  the 
author  as  likely  to  make  it  seem  the  work  of  a  toady. 

Of  all  the  many  books  of  metaphysical  divinity  com¬ 
posed  during  the  last  four  centuries,  The  Diatribe  on  the 
Free  Will  is  one  of  the  very  few  still  readable  on  account 
of  its  brevity,  its  moderation,  and  its  wit.  The  author’s 
irony,  as  well  as  the  force  of  his  destructive  criticism,  is 
nowhere  better  revealed  than  in  the  introductory  section 
of  his  pamphlet,  not  on  the  main  question  itself,  but  on 
the  principles  of  judging.  Admitting  the  Bible  as  the 


1  Enders,  iv,  343. 

2  To  Pirckheimer,  Lond.  xxx,  36;  LB.  ep.  684. 

3  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations,  Allen,  i,  17. 

4  Text  LB.  ix,  1215  ff.  Best  edition:  De  Libero  Arbitrio  kiaTpifiT/  sive 
Collatio  per  D.  Erasmum  Roterodamum,  hg.  von  J.  von  Walter,  1910.  On  the 
date  of  publication,  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  i,  20;  Walter,  Einleitung ,  xii  ff. 

5  To  Clement  VII,  February  13,  1524;  Lond.  xix,  1;  LB.  ep.  670.  To 
Giberti,  September  2,  Lond.  xxi,  5;  LB.  ep.  694. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  347 

standard  authority,  he  shows  that  many  things  in  the 
Bible  are  hard  to  understand,  and  none  harder  than 
the  very  question  at  issue.  The  strong  penchant  of  the 
theologian  to  read  his  own  ideas  into  the  Scripture  is 
seldom  expressed  with  finer  psychological  insight  than 
in  the  observation:  “Whatever  men  read  in  the  Bible 
they  distort  into  an  assertion  of  their  own  opinion,  just 
as  lovers  incessantly  imagine  that  they  see  the  object 
of  their  love  wherever  they  turn.”  The  solution  of  the 
enigma  of  free  choice  may  be  left  by  Providence  to  the 
Last  Judgment,  but  in  any  case  man’s  duty  is  plain, 
“If  we  be  in  the  way  of  piety,  let  us  hasten  on  to  better 
things;  if  involved  in  sin,  let  us  find  the  remedy  of 
repentance.”  Even  if  we  have  arrived  at  the  true  view, 
it  may  be  inexpedient  to  proclaim  it;  who,  for  example, 
would  longer  strive  to  do  good  if  he  knew  that  he  had 
really  no  option  in  the  matter?  Moreover,  salvation  is 
not  prejudiced  by  ignorance  in  these  obscure  matters; 
how  much  rather  has  piety  been  damaged  by  the  strife 
over  useless  questions,  such  as  that  of  the  immaculate 
conception!  These  battles  must  remain  largely  unde¬ 
cided,  for  there  is  no  umpire.  While  both  sides  appeal  , 
to  Scripture  and  to  “solid  reasons,”  no  one  can  tell 
surely  what  Scripture  means.  If  the  sense  is  as  clear 
as  some  people  say,  why  have  so  many  people  differed 
in  interpreting  it?  If  they  appeal  to  the  guidance  of  the 
Spirit,  what  proof  do  they  offer  that  they  are  under 
infallible  inspiration?  If  you  appeal  to  miracles,  they 
talk  as  if  there  had  been  no  Christianity  for  thirteen 
hundred  years.  If  you  ask  for  a  good  life,  they  claim 
to  be  justified  by  faith,  not  by  works. 

Having  thus  set  forth  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
arriving  at  the  demonstration  of  absolute  truth,  the 
author  grapples  with  the  main  problem.  Various  shades 
of  determinist  opinion  are  set  forth:  it  is  hard  to  say — as 
does  Carlstadt — that  the  will  has  power  only  to  sin;  it 
is  much  harder — with  Luther,  Wyclif,  and  a  few  Man- 
ichaeans — to  deny  the  existence  of  free  will  altogether. 


ERASMUS 


348 

Nevertheless,  people  may  differ  without  heresy  on  this 
point  or  on  that,  and  as  Luther,  particularly,  differs 
from  almost  everyone,  he  cannot  object  if  Erasmus  dif¬ 
fers  now  and  then  from  him.  Possibly  his  words  in 
this  matter  are  hyperbolic;  he  may  overstate  his  opinion, 
as  he  apparently  does  when,  in  order  to  guard  against 
the  abuse  of  hagiolatry,  he  denies  that  the  good  deeds 
of  the  saints  have  any  merit  whatever.  Such  paradoxes 
may  be  pardonable  as  a  means  of  arousing  attention,  but 
they  cannot  be  taken  seriously  as  articles  of  faith. 

'Free  will,  defined  as  the  power  to  apply  oneself  to  the 
things  that  make  for  salvation,  is  proved  by  two  argu¬ 
ments:  first,  that  without  it  repentance  would  be  sense¬ 
less  and  punishment  for  sin  unjust,  and,  secondly,  by 
adducing  the  biblical  texts  that  declare,  or  imply,  man’s 
freedom  to  choose,  and  his  responsibility  to  a  God 
desirous  rather  of  his  conversion  than  of  his  death.) 
Other  passages  of  Scripture,  the  author  frankly  admits, 
seem  to  militate  the  other  way,  as  do  the  texts  referring 
to  the  hardening  of  Pharaoh’s  heart,  the  story  of  Jacob 
and  Esau,  Romans  ix,  and  John  xv:  5.  These  sayings 
can,  however,  be  explained  away  better  than  the  others, 
and  perhaps  only  indicate  that  God’s  grace  has  much 
to  do  with  man’s  choice,  even  though  it  is  not  the  only 
factor  involved.  In  short,  sums  up  the  writer,  “the 
opinion  of  those  who  attribute  much  to  grace  but  some¬ 
thing  to  free  will  pleases  me  best.”  God  helps  the  man 
as  a  father  supports  the  first  steps  of  a  young  child; 
only,  God  does  not  do  it  all. 

Erasmus  lost  no  time  in  sending  his  book  to  powerful 
patrons.  With  the  copy  for  Duke  George  of  Saxony  he 
sent  a  letter  saying  that  he  had  not  written  against 
Luther  before  because  he  had  hitherto  regarded  him  as 
a  necessary  evil,  a  drastic  antidote  to  the  corruptions  of 
the  time.1  The  duke  replied  at  once,2  praising  the 

1  F.  Gess:  Akten  und  Brief e  zur  Kirchenpolitik  Herzog  Georgs  von  Sachsen, 
1905,  i,  ep.  723,  with  correct  date  September  6,  1524;  in  LB.  ep.  695  with  date 
September  4.  L.  C.  ep.  634. 

2  Gess,  ep.  742,  written  from  Leipzig  between  October  3  and  October  8,  1524. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  349 

Diatribe  and  sending  Luther’s  Monastic  Vows ,  with  a 
request  for  a  refutation  of  that.  Erasmus  read  the  book, 
which  he  thought  very  garrulous,  but  did  not  reply  to 
it.  Probably  at  Duke  George’s  suggestion  his  protege 
Cochlaeus  translated  the  Erasmian  pamphlet  into  Ger¬ 
man.  This  the  author  disapproved,  alleging  the  short¬ 
comings  of  the  version,  but  probably  also  because  he 
did  not  care  to  argue  his  case  before  the  unlearned  public. 
In  several  letters  to  Cochlaeus  he  blames  the  passionate, 
personal  tone  of  his  polemic  and  his  carelessness  in  state¬ 
ments  of  facts.1 

To  his  English  patrons,  Henry  VIII,  Wolsey,  and 
Cuthbert  Tunstall,  he  also  sent  copies.2  Vives  wrote 
him  shortly  afterward  that  he  had  found  the  king  reading 
it  with  much  evident  delight.3 

Pope  Clement  also  received  a  printed  copy,  with  a 
letter  protesting  against  Aleander’s  hostile  actions.4  He 
gave  the  messenger  ten  ducats,5  but,  having  already 
rewarded  the  author,  apparently  sent  nothing  more  at 
this  time. 

Like  most  controversial  tracts  on  burning  issues,  the 
Diatribe  was  hailed  by  the  partisans  of  the  side  it 
defended  as  a  masterpiece,  whereas  its  enemies  found 
it  an  utter  failure.  Ulrich  Zasius  reported  a  highly 
favorable  opinion  of  it,6  and  his  own  oration  against 
Luther  at  the  University  of  Freiburg  was  probably  much 
influenced  by  it.7  Influenced  by  him,  the  University  of 
Freiburg  condemned  Luther  in  a  memorial  dated  Octo- 

1  M.  Spahn:  J.  Cochlceus ,  1898,  pp.  124,  140. 

2  Lond.  xviii,  48,  51,  52.  LB.  epp.  606,  697,  702.  September  4  and  6. 

3  LB.  ep.  780,  November  13,  1524  (not  1525).  Also  found  in  Auctarium 
Epistolarum  Vivis,  an  appendix  to  Lond.,  ep.  13,  and  in  Vivis  Opera,  vii,  180. 

4  To  John  Matthew  Giberti,  Datary,  September  2,  1524.  Lond.  xxi,  5;  LB. 
ep.  694.  Another  letter  to  Giberti,  dated  October  13,  in  P.  Balan:  Monu- 
menta  Reformation's  Luther ance,  1884,  p.  380. 

5  L.  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes,  English  translation,  ed.  by  Kerr,  x,  337. 
The  entry  in  the  papal  account-book  is  dated  October  24,  1524. 

6  U.  Zasii  epistolce ,  ed.  Riegger,  p.  71.  To  Boniface  Amerbach,  September 
19,  1524. 

7  Ibid,  p.  78  (1524). 


350 


ERASMUS 


ber  12,  1524.1  Calcagnini  wrote  from  Ferrara  On  the 
Free  Motion  of  the  Soul ,  praising  the  work  of  Erasmus 
and  blaming  the  author  for  his  long  delay  in  writing  it.2 

The  Reformers,  however,  with  the  exception  of  Me- 
lanchthon,  disliked  the  Erasmian  pamphlet.  Melanch- 
thon  wrote  that  it  had  been  received  at  Wittenberg  with 
equanimity,  for  it  would  be  tyranny  to  forbid  difference 
of  opinion  on  such  subjects,  and  that  even  Luther  did 
not  object  to  the  caustic  wit,  because  he  believed  the 
discussion  would  be  profitable  to  many.3 

If  we  inquire  of  Doctor  Martin  himself  what  was  his 
opinion  of  the  Diatribe ,  we  shall  find  it  hardly  as  favor¬ 
able  as  reported  by  his  friend.  He  once  said  that  of  all 
the  books  written  against  him  by  the  papists  this  was 
the  only  one  he  had  read  through,  and  that  even  this  he 
often  felt,  while  he  read  it,  like  throwing  under  the  bench.4 
On  November  1,  1524,  he  wrote  that  he  was  so  disgusted 
with  it  that  he  could  hardly  get  beyond  the  first  thirty 
pages,  and  that  he  was  ashamed  to  answer  so  unlearned 
a  book  of  so  learned  a  man.5  His  resolve6  to  answer, 
however,  lest  his  followers  be  led  astray,  was  strength¬ 
ened  by  the  appeals  of  Capito  and  the  other  Strassburg 
preachers,  who  compared  Erasmus  to  the  Scyrian  she- 
goat  of  his  own  proverb;7  this  animal  had  kicked  the  man 
whom  she  had  fed  with  her  milk  and  thus  wiped  out 
by  this  nasty  sequel  the  memory  of  her  previous 
kindness. 

He  was  unable  to  reply  at  once,  however,  on  account 
of  his  preoccupations  with  the  Peasants’  Revolt,  with  a 


1  The  theological  matter  in  this  was  largely  taken,  however,  from  the  bull 
Exsurge  Domine  and  from  the  censure  of  the  University  of  Paris.  See 
E.  Krek  in  Zeitschrift  der  Gesellschaft  fur  Beforderer  der  Geschichtskunde  von 
Freiburg ,  xxxvi,  58-67,  1921. 

2  C.  Calcagnini  Opera  Aliquot ,  1544,  pp.  395  f.  Dedication  to  Bonaventura 
Pistophilus,  January  3,  1525. 

3  September  30,  1524.  Lond.  xix,  2.  LB.  ep.  704,  L.  C.  ep.  637. 

4  Tischreden,  Weimar,  vi,  no.  6850,  apparently  of  late  date. 

6  Enders,  v,  46. 

6  Enders  v,  52.  L.  C.  ep.  645. 

7  Enders,  v,  66  f. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  351 

controversy  over  the  sacrament  with  Carlstadt,  and  with 
other  things,  until  late  in  1525. 1  He  was  finally  brought 
to  it,  if  he  does  not  jest  in  saying  so,  by  the  requests  of 
his  newly  married  wife  and  of  Camerarius.2  In  Septem¬ 
ber  he  began  seriously  to  work  on  his  reply,3  which  was 
finished  by  the  end  of  the  year.4 

Erasmus  was  surprised  at  the  long  delay  in  receiving 
his  answer,  and  attributed  it  to  Luther’s  marriage,  over 
which  he  made  merry.  “Troubles  in  comedies,”  said 
he5  “are  wont  to  end  in  a  wedding,  with  peace  to  all.” 
The  marriage  he  thought  timely,  for  he  heard  that 
Luther’s  wife  had  borne  him  a  son  ten  days  after  it. 
Therefore  said  he,  Luther  begins  to  be  milder  now,  for 
the  fiercest  beasts  are  tamed  by  their  females.  He  later 
confessed  the  rumor  about  the  child  false6 7  and  added 
that  he  was  skeptical  of  the  old  legend  that  the  antichrist 
would  be  born  of  a  monk  and  a  nun,  or  else  there  would 
have  been  many  antichrists  already. 

The  Bondage  of  the  Will?  is,  much  more  than  was 
The  Free  Will ,  a  polemic  with  a  distinct  purpose.  There 
is  another  difference  in  the  apparently  greater  earnest¬ 
ness  of  the  reformer;  what  to  the  Wittenberg  professor 
is  a  matter  of  life  and  death  had  been  to  the  humanist 
the  subject  of  an  interesting  conversation.  It  is  in  this 
sense  that  he  attributes  eloquence  and  skill  in  words 
to  Erasmus,  but  real  knowledge  of  the  point  at  issue  to 
himself. 

If  Erasmus’s  moderation,  which  he  attributed  to  doubt, 
rather  increased  than  assuaged  his  anger,  the  assertion 


1  Enders,  v,  ioo,  105,  125. 

2  Kroker:  Luthers  Tischreden  in  den  Mathesischen  Sammlung.  1903,  no.  212. 

3  Enders  v.  245,  257,  249.  L.  C.  ep.  704. 

4  Enders  v.  294.  L.  C.  ep.  722. 

5  To  N.  Everard,  Chief  Justice  of  Holland.  December  24,  1525.  LB.  ep. 
781.  Luther’s  marriage  took  place  June  13th.  Erasmus  speaks  of  the  news 
again  in  a  letter  to  Lupset  (Lond.  xviii,  11;  L.  B.  ep.  790)  saying  that  Luther 
has  married  a  wonderfully  charming  poor  girl  of  a  family  of  Borna.  Katie 
von  Bora  was  not  at  all  pretty. 

6  To  Silvius.  March  13,  1526.  Lond.  xviii,  22.  LB.  ep.  801. 

7  Luthers  Werke,  Weimar,  xviii,  551  ff.  De  servo  arbitrio. 


352 


ERASMUS 


that  many  texts  in  the  Bible  are  contradictory  made  him 
perfectly  furious.  To  him  the  Scripture,  as  the  inspired 
and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  was  a  single  unit; 
each  text  must  be  taken  literally  and  yet  all  must  be 
made  to  agree,  for  infallible  wisdom  could  not  contra¬ 
dict  itself.  To  the  expressed  doubt  about  the  necessity 
and  importance  of  deciding  such  dogmatic  questions  he 
answered  with  a  counter-assertion  of  their  supreme  sig¬ 
nificance;  to  the  charge  that  uproar  followed  the  proc¬ 
lamation  of  untimely  truths  he  replied  that  this  is  one 
of  the  very  signs  of  the  preaching  of  the  Word. 

After  this  lengthy  introduction  Luther  expounded  his 
argument  for  determinism,  based  not,  as  that  of  a  modern 
thinker  might  be,  on  any  conviction  of  the  reign  of  unal¬ 
terable  law,  but  solely  on  the  ground  of  the  all-sufficiency 
(monergism)  of  God’s  grace  and  the  impotence  of  the 
natural  man  to  choose  the  good.  Following  Augustine 
in  the  assertion  that  God  inclines  men’s  hearts  either  to 
good  or  to  evil  according  to  their  foreseen  merits,1  and 
that  God  even  wills  them  to  sin  in  order  to  punish  them,2 
Luther  proclaimed  in  the  strongest  terms  the  total  impo- 
tency  of  the  natural  man: 

The  human  will  is  like  a  beast  of  burden.3  If  God  mounts  it,  it 
wishes  and  goes  as  God  wills;  if  Satan  mounts  it,  it  wishes  and  goes 
as  Satan  wills.  Nor  can  it  choose  its  rider,  nor  betake  itself  to  him 
it  would  prefer,  but  it  is  the  riders  who  contend  for  its  possession.4 
.  .  .  This  is  the  acme  of  faith,  to  believe  that  God,  who  saves  so 
few  and  condemns  so  many,  is  merciful;  that  he  is  just  who  has 
made  us  necessarily  doomed  to  damnation,  so  that,  as  Erasmus 
says,  he  seems  to  delight  in  the  tortures  of  the  wretched,  and  to  be 

1  Augustine:  De  gratia  et  libero  arbitrio,  cap.  20. 

2  Augustine:  Contra  Julianum ,  lib.  5,  cap.  3,  §§  10-13. 

3  This  simile  of  God  as  the  rider  of  the  will  comes  from  Augustine  or  pseudo- 
Augustine,  Libri  III  Hypomnesticum  contra  Pelagium.  It  was  cited  as  Augus¬ 
tine’s  by  Eck  in  the  Leipzig  Debate,  O.  Seitz:  Der  authentische  Text  der  Leip- 
ziger  Disputation ,  p.  28.  Whether  the  work  was  really  by  Augustine  has  been 
doubted.  Cf.  A.  V.  Muller:  Luthers  theologische  Quellen,  1912,  p.  207.  The 
simile  is  also  found  in  Raymund  de  Sabunde,  tit.  246-248.  Cf.  Zeitschrift  fur 
Kirchengeschichte,  xxxv,  135  f. 

4  This  idea  of  the  contest  of  the  good  and  evil  spirits  reminds  one  of  Erasmus’s 
saying  that  the  Manichaeans  had  rejected  the  free  will. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  353 

more  deserving  of  hatred  than  of  love.  If  by  any  effort  of  reason 
I  could  conceive  how  God,  who  shows  so  much  anger  and  iniquity, 
could  be  merciful  and  just,  there  would  be  no  need  of  faith.  .  .  . 
God  foreknows  nothing  subject  to  contingencies,1  but  he  foresees, 
foreordains,  and  accomplishes  all  things  by  an  unchanging,  eternal, 
and  efficacious  will.  By  this  thunderbolt  free  will  sinks  shattered  in 
the  dust. 

The  argument,  of  course,  is  based  chiefly  on  biblical 
texts,  especially  such  as  that  about  God  hardening 
Pharaoh’s  heart,  the  saying  that  God  loved  Jacob  and 
hated  Esau,  and  the  case  of  Judas,  whose  sin,  being  fore¬ 
seen,  was  bound  to  take  place.  In  order  to  reconcile  the 
idea  of  an  inexorable  Almighty  God,  predisposing  all 
things,  even  sin,  with  the  idea  of  a  God  of  love  as  re¬ 
vealed  in  Jesus,  Luther  distinguished  two  divine  wills, 
one  hidden  and  one  revealed.  This  was  his  theodicy. 

Luther’s  tract,  though  not  the  only  answer  to  Erasmus, 
threw  all  others  into  the  shade.  Francis  Lambert,  the 
French  Reformer,  had  already  written  a  book  on  The 
Captive  Will ,  directed  against  the  humanist,  though 
not  naming  him.2  Bugenhagen  prepared  a  reply,  but 
suppressed  it  because  “he  wished  Erasmus  well,  saving 
God’s  truth,”  and  because  his  greater  friend  had  already 
taken  up  the  cudgels.3  Capito,  too,  designed  an  answer 
to  the  man  whom  he  now  thought  of  as  doing  all  he 
could  to  destroy  faith,  but  he  also  retired  from  the  field 
because  of  discouragement  from  Luther.4 

The  Bondage  of  the  Will ,  first  printed  in  December, 
1525,  had  a  wide  sale,  seven  Latin  and  two  German 
editions  being  called  for  within  a  year.5  The  author 

1  This  against  Valla,  who  said  that,  though  a  man’s  will  was  free,  his  volun¬ 
tary  act  was  foreknown.  E.  Maier:  Die  Willensjreiheit  bei  L.  Valla,  1911. 
Luther’s  words  would  also  apply  to  Aquinas,  but  he  apparently  knew  little  of 
this  author. 

2Herminjard:  Correspondance  des  Reformateurs  des  Pays  de  la  Langue 
Frangaise,  9  vols.,  1866-97,  i,  348. 

3  0.  Vogt:  Bugenhagens  Briefwechsel,  1888,  p.  21. 

4  Capito  to  Bugenhagen,  October  8,  1525,  ibid,  p.  35. 

5Luthers  Werke,  Weimar,  xviii,  551  ff;  introduction  to  the  De  Servo  Ar~ 
bitrio.  Only  four  Latin  editions  and  two  German  are  given  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Erasmiana ,  iii,  37.  Erasmus  once  spoke  of  ten  editions  before  the  end  of  1526. 


354 


ERASMUS 


himself  was  much  pleased  with  it,  remarking  at  one  time 
that  he  would  be  content  to  have  all  his  books  perish 
save  the  Catechisms  and  the  Bondage  of  the  Will.  His 
friend,  Justus  Jonas,  a  quondam  Erasmian,  now  con¬ 
vinced  that,  though  his  former  master  was  still  “a 
valuable,  high-minded  man,  yet  his  book  on  the 
Free  Will  was  offensive  and  contrary  to  the  Gospel,”1 
hastened  to  translate  Luther’s  work  into  German. 
Like  all  other  controversial  pamphlets,  it  was  judged 
mainly  from  the  partisan  standpoint,  though  here  and 
there  it  carried  conviction  even  into  hostile  minds.  The 
humanist  of  Munster,  James  Montanus,  a  friend  of  the 
Rotterdamer,  opined  that  Erasmus  in  the  Diatribe  had 
misunderstood  Luther  and  that  he  could  not  possibly 
refute  his  answer.2  Considering  that  The  Bondage  of  the 
Will  was  the  chief  fountain  and  source  of  Calvin’s 
tremendous  doctrine  of  predestination  and  election,  it 
is  not  too  much  to  reckon  it  as  one  of  the  most  important 
of  sixteenth-century  works. 

Luther  sent  his  treatise  to  his  opponent  with  a  letter,3 
now  lost,  expressing  arrogant  confidence  in  his  own 
opinion.  Erasmus,  stung  to  the  quick,  replied  as  follows:4 

Your  letter  was  delivered  to  me  late  and  had  it  come  on  time  it 
would  not  have  moved  me.  .  .  .  The  whole  world  knows  your 
nature,  according  to  which  you  have  guided  your  pen  against  no  one 
more  bitterly  and,  what  is  more  detestable,  more  maliciously  than 
against  me.  .  .  .  The  same  admirable  ferocity  which  you  formerly 
used  against  Cochkeus  and  against  Fisher,  who  provoked  you  to  it 
by  reviling,  you  now  use  against  my  book  in  spite  of  its  courtesy. 
How  do  your  scurrilous  charges  that  I  am  an  atheist,  an  Epicurean, 
and  a  skeptic  help  the  argument?  ...  It  terribly  pains  me,  as  it 
must  all  good  men,  that  your  arrogant,  insolent,  rebellious  nature 
has  set  the  world  in  arms.  ...  You  treat  the  Evangelic  cause 

1  On  this  op.  cit.y  and  Jonas’s  letter  to  Albert  Count  of  Mansfeld  in  Kawerau: 
Briefzvechsel  des  Justus  Jonas ,  i,  ep.  93. 

2  Montanus  to  Pirckheimer,  January  9,  1525,  and  April  23,  1526.  Zeitschrift 
fur  vaterlandische  [ Westfalens ]  Geschichte  und  Altertumskunde ,  Munster,  1914, 
Band  lxxii,  pp.  27,  35  f. 

3  On  it  cf.  Erasmus  to  Wolsey,  April  25,  1526.  LB.  ep.  810.  Lond.  xxi,  33. 

4  Enders  v.  334;  Lond.  xxi,  28;  LB.  ep.  806.  L.  C.  ep.  729. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  355 

so  as  to  confound  together  all  things  sacred  and  profane  as  if  it  were 
your  chief  aim  to  prevent  the  tempest  from  ever  becoming  calm, 
while  it  is  my  greatest  desire  that  it  should  die  down.  ...  I  should 
wish  you  a  better  disposition  were  you  not  so  marvelously  satisfied 
with  the  one  you  have.  Wish  me  any  curse  you  will  except  your 
temper,  unless  the  Lord  change  it  for  you. 

Bitter  complaints  about  Luther’s  acerbity,  and  about 
the  unfairness  of  having  a  German  version  which  would 
excite  the  vulgar  artisans  and  to  which  he  could  not 
reply,  overflow  the  humanist’s  correspondence  at  this 
time.1  On  March  2d  he  even  wrote  the  Elector  John  of 
Saxony,  demanding  the  protection  of  the  laws  against 
Luther’s  accusations  of  atheism.2  The  elector  at  once 
forwarded3  the  missive  to  Luther  for  advice,  which  he 
received  to  the  effect  that  “his  Grace  should  not  let 
himself  mix  in  the  affair,  as  the  viper  asks,  but  should 
reply,  according  as  he  himself  well  knows,  that  his 
Grace  neither  can  nor  should  be  a  judge  in  spiritual 
affairs.”4 

Erasmus  believed  that  the  book  had  been  composed 
by  the  combined  efforts  of  “  the  church  of  Wittenberg  ” — 
he  had  Melanchthon  especially  in  mind — and  that  it 
had  been  sent  him  late  by  the  author  on  purpose  so  that 
he  could  not  answer  it  before  the  great  Frankfort  book 
fair.5  However,  having  been  early  supplied  with  a  copy 
by  a  friend  in  Leipzig6 — probably  Duke  George — he  set 
about  with  tremendous  energy  to  frustrate  this  plan, 
completing  his  answer  in  twelve  days,  and  engaging 
Froben  to  work  six  presses  at  once,  turning  out  twenty- 


1To  Gattinara,  April  29,  1526.  Zeitschrift  fur  historische  Theologie ,  xxix, 
1859,  p.  693. 

2  Unpublished  letter  in  the  Weimar  archives,  of  which  extracts  are  given  in 
Enders,  v.  342.  The  German  copy  of  the  letter  is  dated  March  13th. 

8  Enders,  v.  340. 

4  De  Wette:  Luthers  Brief e,  1825  IF,  iii,  105;  Enders,  v.  344. 

sTo  Michael,  Bishop  of  Langres,  March  13,  1526.  Lond.  xviii,  24;  LB. 
ep.  800. 

*  Cf.  letter  of  George  to  Erasmus,  February  13,  1526.  Gess:  Akten  und 
Brief ey  ep.  39,  and  Erasmus  to  Emser.  Lond.  xviii,  28  (with  wrong  date  1527  for 
1526). 


ERASMUS 


356 

four  pages  a  day.  Consequently,  the  first  part  of  the 
Hyperaspistes 1  appeared  about  March,  1526.  It  is  a  full 
defense  of  the  Diatribe ,  being  three  times  larger  than 
that  work.  In  it,  however,  the  question  of  the  wdll 
recedes  in  importance  behind  the  larger  subject  of  the 
excellence  of  the  Evangelical  doctrine.  Erasmus  cannot 
persuade  himself  of  the  beneficial  effect  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  Luther’s  person  being  the  chief  cause.  He  blames 
his  opponent  with  having  caused  the  peasant’s  revolt 
and  with  his  cruel  book  against  the  peasants.  He 
reproaches  the  reform  also  with  the  lack  of  unity  among 
the  leaders,  especially  with  the  quarrel  between  Luther 
and  Carlstadt.  He  promises  to  answer  The  Bondage  of 
the  Will  more  fully  later,  and  warmly  defends  himself 
from  the  charges  of  skepticism. 

This  work  also  enjoyed  much  popularity,  being 
reprinted  at  least  four  times  in  1526  and  translated  into 
German  by  Jerome  Emser,  the  protege  of  Duke  George.2 
This  nobleman  was  much  pleased  with  the  work  as  he 
wrote  its  author  on  April  16th.3  His  councilor,  Pistorius,4 
also  wrote  on  April  19th  urging  him  to  continue  with  his 
good  work  and,  in  order  to  help  him,  had  some  of  the 
Reformer’s  German  books  translated  into  Latin,  so  that 
Erasmus  might  refute  all  the  errors  contained  in  them. 

The  emperor  also  wrote  on  November  9,  1526,  from 
Granada,  congratulating  Erasmus  on  becoming  at  last 
ex  professo  an  enemy  of  Luther  and  exhorting  him  to 
continue.5  A  second  letter  of  a  year  later,  again  expressed 
the  monarch’s  pleasure  that  Erasmus  had  dissociated 
himself  from  Luther’s  madness,  and  exonerated  Erasmus 
from  all  error  save  a  few  human  slips.6 

1  LB.,  x,  1249.  Preface  dated  February  20,  1526. 

*  Emser  had  published  Erasmus’s  Rythmi  in  laudem  Anna  Avia  Jesu  in 
1515.  See  J.  Truhlar:  Catalogus  manuscriptorum  in  Bibliotheca  Universitatis 
Pragensis,  1906,  no.  2771.  Cf.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  109-110,  and  Emser’s 
tracts  published  in  Corpus  Catholicorum,  i,  4,  p.  54  (1921). 

3  Horawitz,  Erasmiana,  I,  ep.  10.  Gess,  ii,  527. 

4  LB.  App.  ep.  336. 

5  Brewer:  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII,  iv,  No.  604. 

6  December  13,  1527.  LB.  ep.  1915. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  357 

Yet  it  was  with  a  heavy  heart  that  he  continued  his 
work.  On  June  6,  1526,  he  wrote  Pirckheimer  that, 
although  Luther  left  no  place  for  friendship,  he  seemed 
to  restrain  his  wrath,  and  that  in  writing  against  him  he 
knew  that  he  aided  some  who  would  rather  see  Erasmus 
dead  than  the  Reformer  himself.1 

That,  indeed,  he  decided  to  publish  the  second  half  of 
the  Hyperaspistes  was  perhaps  due  to  the  importunity  of 
his  English  friends2  and  to  a  renewal  of  the  quarrel 
between  Luther  and  Henry  VIII.  The  Reformer  had 
had  the  poor  judgment  to  write  a  humble  letter  to  his 
royal  enemy,  offering  to  make  public  apology  for  his 
former  polemic.3  After  a  long  delay  the  king  answered 
with  a  fiercer  missive  than  before,4  accusing  him  of  all  his 
old  errors  and  of  a  variety  of  crimes,  including  the 
incitement  to  the  peasants’  war  and  living  in  wantonness 
with  a  nun.  This  letter  was  edited  and  translated  by 
Emser,  who  sent  a  copy  of  it  to  Erasmus  December  25, 
1526,  begging  him  to  publish  the  rest  of  his  Hyperaspistes 
and  saying  that  by  not  doing  so  he  made  himself 
suspected.5 

Under  these  combined  stimuli  Erasmus  finally  decided 
to  bring  out  a  comprehensive  work  against  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  studying  a  number  of  the  Wittenberg  professor’s 
books  with  care.  The  Hyperaspistes  II  is  six  times  as 
large  as  the  Diatribe ,  being  not  only  a  careful  refutation 
of  The  Bondage  of  the  Will  but  an  attack  all  along  the 
line.  A  lengthy  excursus  is  devoted  to  the  quarrel  with 
Henry  VIII,  Luther  s  reply  to  the  letter  last  mentioned 
having  given  special  offense.  Erasmus  definitely  breaks 
with  the  reform  at  last  and  predicts  that  no  name  will 
be  more  hated  by  posterity  than  will  Luther’s.  He  finds 


1  Lond.  xxx,  44.  LB.  ep.  823. 

2  More  wrote  him  from  Greenwich,  December  18,  1526,  urging  him  to  do  so. 
LB.  App.  ep.  334. 

3  September  1,  1525.  Enders,  v.  229.  L.  C.  ep.  700. 

4  Epistola  Martini  Lutheri.  .  .  .  Responsio  dicii  regis.  Dresden.  1527. 
L.  C.  ep.  737. 

5  Forstemann  und  Gunther,  ep.  56. 


ERASMUS 


358 

fault  especially  with  the  absolutism  of  the  professor, 
“who  never  recoils  from  extremes. ”  For  himself  he  is  a 
humanist,  who  believes  that  reason  reveals  truth  as  well 
as  Scripture,  and  who  “like  nature,  abhors  portents.” 
Indeed,  it  has  been  said,1  with  no  more  exaggeration 
than  is  pardonable  in  any  brief  generalization,  that  the 
controversy  was  fundamentally  not  so  much  on  the 
subject  of  the  will  as  on  the  claims  of  revealed  versus 
natural  religion.  Luther  feared  that  the  absolute  claim 
of  Christianity  would  be  compromised.  In  short  this 
work  reveals  better  than  any  other  the  fundamental 
difference  in  the  rjdog  of  the  two  men. 

When  the  Hyperaspistes  Part  II  appeared  about  Sep¬ 
tember  1,  1527,  Erasmus  sent  a  copy  at  once  to  the  em¬ 
peror,2  with  a  request  for  protection  against  the  now 
enraged  Lutherans,  and  to  Duke  George  with  a  letter 
protesting  that  nothing  had  ever  been  so  tedious  to  him 
as  reading  Luther’s  works.3  The  nobleman,  while  pleased 
at  Erasmus’s  efforts  to  overturn  Luther,  could  not 
wholly  rid  himself  of  the  idea  that,  after  all,  the  two 
champions  were  much  of  a  sort,  and  that  Erasmus  was 
still  in  doubt  about  Luther’s  spirit.4  To  Maldonato 
Erasmus  sent  what  was  perhaps  the  most  perfect  state¬ 
ment  of  his  position:5 6 

While  I  was  fighting  against  these  monsters  [the  enemies  of  learning] 
a  fairly  equal  battle,  lo!  suddenly  Luther  arose  and  threw  the  apple 
of  discord  into  the  world.  ...  I  brought  it  about  that  humanism, 
which  among  the  Italians  and  especially  among  the  Romans  savored 
of  nothing  but  pure  paganism,  began  nobly  to  celebrate  Christ,  in 
whom,  if  we  are  true  Christians,  we  ought  to  boast  as  the  one  author 
of  both  wisdom  and  happiness.  ...  I  always  avoided  the 

1  R.  Will:  La  Liberie  Chreiienne  chez  Luther ,  1922,  p.  32  ff. 

2  Lond.  xx,  5;  LB.  ep.  895. 

3  Lond.  xix,  47;  LB.  ep.  889.  Cf.  his  letter  to  Vergara  complaining  that 
he  had  almost  died  of  reading  the  taunts,  grimaces,  insults,  boasts,  jeers,  and 
cries  of  triumph  in  Luther’s  books.  Lond.  xx,  14;  LB.  ep.  893. 

4  J.  Caesarius  to  J.  Lang,  Leipzig,  October  n,  1527.  K.  und  W.  Krafft: 

Brief e  und  Dokumente  aus  der  Zeit  der  Reformation,  1875,  p.  154.  See  George 
to  Erasmus,  January  1,  1527.  F.  Gess:  Akten  und  Briefe,  ii,  no.  681. 

6  March  30,  1527.  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii,  1907,  pp.  629  f. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  359 

character  of  a  dogmatist,  except  in  certain  obiter  dicta  which  seemed 
to  me  likely  to  correct  studies  and  the  preposterous  judgments  of 
men.  The  world  was  put  into  a  deeper  slumber  by  ceremonies  than 
it  could  have  been  by  mandrake;  monks,  or  rather,  pseudo-monks, 
reigned  in  the  consciences  of  men,  for  they  had  bound  them  on 
purpose  in  inextricable  knots. 

Luther  never  deigned  to  answer  the  Hyperaspistes — 
though  in  his  private  letters  he  punned  on  the  name  as 
if  it  meant  “super-viperine” 1 — for  he  thought  that  a 
reply  would  do  too  much  honor  to  one  “who  should  be 
condemned  rather  than  refuted,  as  he  mocked  all 
religion  like  his  dear  Lucian.”2  The  other  reformers, 
even  Melanchthon,3  resented  the  attack.  Jonas  now 
called  his  once  loved  master  “an  old  fox,”4  and  another 
member  of  the  group,  Mark  Forster,  published  a  Judg¬ 
ment  of  the  recently  published  Books  on  the  Will  vainly 
called  Free  and  truly  called  Bound ,  giving  the  palm  of 
victory  to  the  Wittenberger.5 

Erasmus’s  private  letters,  those  never  published  by 
himself,  prove  that  he  kept  au  courant  with  Luther’s 
doings  and  writings.  At  one  time  he  asked  to  see  the 
tract  On  the  Turkish  Warf  at  another  time  to  have  pro¬ 
cured  the  pamphlet  On  the  Keys  of  the  Church ,  if  in  Latin.7 
His  friend  and  the  Reformer’s  bitterest  enemy,  Duke 
George  of  Albertine  Saxony,  continued  to  supply  him 
with  literature  and  to  do  his  best  to  spur  him  to  new 
efforts  in  defense  of  the  faith.  The  Wittenberg  professor 
wrote  to  the  duke  on  December  21,  1525, 8  hoping  to 
make  him  a  convert,  but  received  a  tart  reply  bidding 

1  Enders,  vi,  103,  105,  no.  L.  C.  epp.  728,  777. 

2  To  Montanus,  May  28,  1529;  Enders  vii,  105;  L.  C.  ep.  834. 

3  To  Luther,  October  2,  1527.  Enders  vi,  97;  L.  C.  ep.  730. 

4  Jonas  to  Lang,  October  17,  1527,  Kawerau:  Briejwechsel  des  Justus  Jonas , 
ep.  107. 

5  De  Libellis  vane  Liberi  et  vere  Send  Arbitrii  nuper  ceditis  Judicium,  Marci 
Fiirsiheri.  Dated  Wittenberg,  March  17,  1526.  Reprinted  in  Theologische 
Studien  und  Kritiken,  1911,  pp.  136  IF. 

6  Epistolcz  ad  Amerbachium ,  no.  29,  no  date.  The  Turkish  War  was  written 
in  1529. 

7  Ibid.  no.  2.  The  Keys  was  written  in  1530. 

8  Enders  v,  281;  Gess  ii,  459;  L.  C.  ep.  720. 


ERASMUS 


360 

him  keep  his  gospel  to  himself.1  When  this  correspond¬ 
ence  was  forwarded  to  Erasmus,  he  read  the  duke’s 
letter  with  pleasure,  but  even  then  replied  to  him,  much 
to  his  disgust,  that  it  was  difficult  to  regard  Luther’s 
spirit  as  either  a  wholly  good  or  a  wholly  evil  one.2  The 
course  of  events,  however,  turned  him  ever  more  strongly 
against  the  Protestants,  and  when  Luther  wrote  a  violent 
pamphlet  entitled  Of  Secret  and  Stolen  Letters ,  accusing 
Duke  George  of  robbing  the  mails,  Erasmus  confessed 
that  the  impudence  and  scurrility  of  the  invective  had 
alienated  him  more  from  the  author  than  a  hundred 
books  by  his  enemies  would  have  done,3  and  he  even 
sent  a  protest  to  Melanchthon.4  At  another  time  he 
entered  a  vain  protest  to  the  Elector  John  against  his 
subject’s  treatment  of  priests  and  monks;5  and  he  also 
narrowly  escaped  becoming  involved  in  the  war  of  pens 
which  arose  over  the  spurious  treaty  forged  by  Dr.  Otto 
von  Pack.6 

It  is  fairly  astonishing,  after  all  that  Erasmus  had 
done  to  clear  his  skirts  of  the  Reformation,  that  he 
should  still  have  been  appealed  to  from  time  to  time  as 
an  umpire  or  a  peacemaker.  While  the  extremists  of 
both  parties  reviled  him,  moderate  Catholic  and  Prot¬ 
estant  alike  turned  to  him  for  final  judgment;  he  was 
treated  alternately  as  an  outlaw  and  as  the  arbiter  of 
Christendom.  So,  when  the  great  Diet  of  Augsburg  was 
opened  by  the  emperor  in  1530,  with  the  express  pur¬ 
pose — though  the  hope  proved  fallacious — of  reconciling 
the  contending  parties,  Erasmus  was  plied  with  letters 
from  both  sides,  urging  him  to  use  his  influence  in  favor 

1  Enders  v,  285;  Gess  ii,  472  (with  many  corrections);  L.  C.  ep.  721. 

2  Lond.  xviii,  6;  LB.  ep.  991.  With  wrong  date  September  2,  1527,  for  1526. 
Cf.  Horawitz:  Erasmiana  ( Sitzunberichte  der  Wiener  Akademie ,  xc),  p.  412. 

3  Erasmus  to  Duke  George,  June  30,  1530.  Lond.  xxv,  29;  LB.  ep.  1113. 
On  the  controversy  between  Luther  and  Duke  George,  see  P.  Smith:  Life  and 
Letters  of  Martin  Luther,  p.  225. 

4  Corpus  Reformatorum,  ii,  288. 

6  Erasmus  to  Maldonato,  March  30,  1527.  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii,  1907, 
P-  538' 

6  Forstemann-Giinther,  ep.  83.  On  this  affair,  Smith,  Life  of  Luther ,  224  f. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  361 

of  compromise.1  Himself  hoping  that  the  Diet  would 
extirpate  heresy  while  avoiding  war,2  he  wrote  to  influ¬ 
ential  friends  urging  a  peaceful  course  and  approving 
certain  reforms,  such  as  the  eucharist  administered  in 
both  kinds,  the  marriage  of  priests,  and  the  regulation 
or  abolition  of  private  masses.  It  was  even  reported 
that  he  had  written  to  the  emperor  that  the  matter  was 
too  great  to  be  hastily  dispatched,  and  that  reforms 
should  begin  at  home.3 

The  rumor  that  he  was  actually  invited  by  the  em¬ 
peror  to  make  peace4  was,  however,  unfounded,  but  the 
protagonists  of  both  parties  appealed  to  him.  Luther, 
as  an  outlaw,  did  not  appear  at  Augsburg,  and  the 
leadership  of  the  Protestants  therefore  fell  upon  Melanch- 
thon,  who  had  always  cultivated  friendly  relations  with 
Erasmus.  He  wrote  to  him  more  than  once,  complain¬ 
ing  of  the  ferocity  of  Eck,  the  Catholic  leader,  speaking 
of  the  moderation  of  the  princes  and  praying  him  to  use 
his  influence  for  peace.5  Erasmus  replied  that  no  one 
but  God  could  compose  this  tragedy,  even  if  ten  coun¬ 
cils  met,  that  he  had  never  written  to  the  emperor,  nor 
been  summoned  by  him,  but  that  he  had  written  to 
Campeggio,  to  the  Bishop  of  Augsburg,  and  to  other 
friends  in  the  sense  Melanchthon  wished.  He  added,  in 
two  letters,  that  Melanchthon  would  most  profit  the 
cause  by  prevailing  with  Luther  to  forgo  his  obstinate 
reviling  and  provocation  of  the  princes.6 


1  Choler  to  Erasmus,  February  3,  1530,  Enthoven,  no.  80;  Susquetus  to 
Erasmus,  August  31,  1530,  ibid ,  no.  87.  John  von  Vlatten,  secretary  of  the 
Duke  of  Cleves,  to  Erasmus,  Forstemann-Gunther,  no.  130.  Pistorius  to 
Erasmus,  June  27,  1530,  ibid,  no.  128. 

2  Lond.  xxv,  29;  LB.  ep.  1113.  June  30,  1530. 

3  Justus  Jonas  to  Luther,  Augsburg,  July  28,  1530.  Enders,  xvii,  265. 

4  Enthoven  no.  87.  Also  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  Enders  viii,  63.  The 
falsity  of  the  rumor  is  proved  by  Erasmus’s  letters  to  Melanchthon,  Cor.  Ref. 
ii,  288  and  244;  Melanchthon  to  Erasmus,  ii,  232. 

5  Melanchthon  to  Erasmus,  August  I,  1530.  Melanchthonis  Epistolce 
Lond.,  1642,  i,  114.  LB.  1125. 

6  LB.  epp.  117  and  1126.  Corpus  Ref.  ii,  288.  Erasmus  to  Melanchthon, 
July  7,  August  2,  and  August  18,  1530.  Luther  was  kept  informed  of  the  less 
offensive  parts  of  Erasmus’s  letters.  Enders  viii,  202. 


ERASMUS 


362 

Eck  also,  notwithstanding  an  order  from  the  Bishop 
of  Vienna  to  keep  quiet,1  was  after  Erasmus,  plying  him 
not  to  use  his  influence  for  peace,  but  to  hunt  out  the 
foxes  from  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord.  For  his  part,  he 
said,  he  tried  rather  to  displease  than  to  please  the 
heretics;  he  had  found  3,000  errors  in  Luther’s  books, 
of  which  he  had  selected  400  to  publish  at  the  Diet.2 
Eck’s  uncompromising  spirit  was  still  further  revealed 
by  a  letter  from  John  Henckel,  confessor  to  Queen 
Maria  of  Hungary,  the  emperor’s  sister,  speaking  of  a 
conference  with  Eck  in  which  that  theologian  had  vio¬ 
lently  blamed  him  for  having  seen  Melanchthon,  not¬ 
withstanding  which  he  had  since  interviewed  Bucer  and 
Capito.3  Erasmus  hardly  thought  it  worth  while  to 
remonstrate  with  so  belligerent  a  person,  but  did  write 
an  earnest  plea  for  peace  to  Cardinal  Campeggio.4 
Besides  the  miseries  which  follow  war,  and  with  which 
the  world  has  so  long  been  plagued,  he  urged  that  its 
issue  would  be  extremely  doubtful;  that  not  only  would 
the  emperor  be  in  danger,  but  that  the  Church  herself 
would  suffer,  as  the  people  would  be  persuaded  that  the 
pope  was  responsible.  Much  as  he  detests  the  sec¬ 
taries,  he  thinks  the  peace  of  the  world  should  be  pre¬ 
ferred  even  to  giving  them  their  desserts.  Nor  should 
the  Church  be  despaired  of,  for  her  condition  was  no 
worse  than  it  had  been  under  Arcadius  and  Theodosius. 

The  attempts  to  arrive  at  a  solid  agreement  were 
fruitless.  The  Protestants  were  allowed  to  read  their 
Confession  on  June  25th,  but  a  refutation  of  this  was 
forthcoming,  and  the  Catholic  majority  voted  that  they 
must  recant  before  the  15th  of  the  following  April,  or 
they  would  be  proceeded  against  as  schismatics.5 

The  part  played  by  Erasmus  in  the  popular  imagina- 

1  John  Faber  to  Erasmus,  June  21,  1531.  Enthoven,  no.  92. 

2  Eck  to  Erasmus,  September  1 8,  1530.  Lond.  xxx,  80.  LB.  1141. 

3  October  1,  1530.  Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  137. 

4  August  18,  1530.  LB.  ep.  1129. 

6  Erasmus  speaks  of  this  in  a  letter  to  Antony  Dalbonius,  Abbot  at  Lyons. 
November  27,  1530.  Lond.  xxv,  41.  LB.  1147. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  363 

tion  was  well  depicted  by  a  comedy  enacted  at  Augsburg 
representing  the  progress  of  the  Reformation.1  A  person¬ 
age  dressed  as  a  doctor  (Reuchlin)  came  in  with  a 
bundle  of  fagots,  which  he  threw  on  the  ground. 
Erasmus  then  entered,  tried  to  pick  them  up,  but,  not 
succeeding,  arranged  them  in  the  form  of  a  pyre  and 
then  fled.  Enter  Luther,  who  set  fire  to  the  wood.  Then 
a  personage  in  the  imperial  insignia  tried  to  put  the  fire 
out  by  beating  it  with  his  sword,  but  only  made  it  burn 
the  brighter.  Then  the  pope  arrived  with  two  buckets, 
one  of  oil  and  one  of  water,  and  poured  the  first  on  the 
flame,  which  naturally  made  it  assume  enormous  pro¬ 
portions.  After  three  representations  of  this  farce  the 
authorities  thought  it  time  to  intervene,  but  the  actors 
had  time  to  flee  before  they  were  discovered. 

Even  after  the  close  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  several 
appeals  were  made  to  Erasmus  to  act  as  arbitrator.  One 
of  these  came  from  Julius  Pflug,  one  of  the  most  admi¬ 
rable  of  the  Catholic  divines,  who  wrote  from  Leipzig, 
May  12,  1 53 1,2  saying  that  if  Erasmus  would  intercede 
with  Melanchthon,  or  with  some  other  good  man,  he 
thought  that  on  the  Catholic  side  some  concessions  might 
be  made,  for  the  sake  of  expediency,  even  of  things 
undesirable  in  themselves.  Erasmus  replied  that  he  was 
sick  and  tired  of  mediating,  feeling  like  the  man  who  in 
trying  to  separate  two  gladiators  met  his  death.3  He 
had  formerly  interceded  with  the  emperor,  with  Gat- 
tinara,  and  with  Adrian,  but  all  in  vain.  As  for 
Melanchthon,  he  was  liked  even  by  his  opponents  and 
did  his  best  for  conciliation  at  Augsburg. 

A  year  later  an  urgent  appeal  came  from  George 
Wicel,  an  enthusiastic  young  Catholic  with  reforming 
tendencies.4  He  addressed  Erasmus  in  terms  of  the 
highest  praise,5  as  the  man  who  understood  religion  the 

1  Meyer,  144,  note  3. 

2  Lond.  xxvii,  1.  LB.  1186. 

3  August  20,  1531.  Lond.  xxvii,  2.  LB.  1195. 

4  On  him  see  G.  Kawerau  in  Realencyklopadie. 

5  His  letter,  Frankfort,  September  8,  1532.  Forstemann-Gunther,  no.  178. 


ERASMUS 


364 

best  and  who  watched  over  it  most  carefully,  who  spent 
most  for  it  and  who  was  able  to  help  it  the  most.  A 
picture  of  the  evils  of  the  sects  was  followed  by  an 
exhortation  to  work  for  the  Church:  “Stimulate  the 
princes  to  consider  the  matter.  .  .  .  Counsel,  propose 
methods,  pray,  conjure,  and  sweat  that  the  Church  be 
given  back  to  Christ.” 

Wicel  followed  up  this  letter  by  another,  dated  March 
30,  1533,  expressing  his  desire  for  a  general  council,  his 
trust  that  Charles  V  would  moderate  the  Curia,  and  his 
belief  that  Luther’s  ferocity  was  moderating:  “We  hope 
that  you,  Erasmus,  will  be  our  Solon,  by  whose  arbitra¬ 
ment  each  party  would  give  up  something  for  the  sake 
of  avoiding  strife.”1 

In  pursuance  of  these  appeals,  particularly  as  he 
judged  that  by  this  time  the  sects  were  growing  milder,2 
Erasmus  wrote,  in  1533,  his  Book  on  Mending  the  Peace 
of  the  Church  and  on  Quieting  Dissent ,3  dedicating  it  to 
Julius  Pflug;  he  recommended  tolerance  in  trifles,  the 
prohibition  of  books  likely  to  disturb  public  order,  and 
the  summons  of  a  general  council  backed  by  the  civil 
power.  The  best  way  to  still  schism,  he  urged,  was  for 
everyone  to  lead  a  good  life.  Harking  back  to  his  con¬ 
tention  with  Luther,  he  pleaded  that  such  thorny  ques¬ 
tions  as  that  of  free  will  should  be  left  to  academic 
discussion.  In  reference  to  recent  and  violent  icono¬ 
clastic  outbreaks,  while  deprecating  idolatry  he  set  forth 
the  view  that  images  should  be  allowed  as  “silent 
poetry.” 

This  harmless  essay  evoked  an  immediate  storm  of 
wrath  from  the  Reformers  and  the  eventual  condemna¬ 
tion  of  the  Catholics.4  Luther’s  attack  took  the  form 

1  Best  printed  in  the  Zeitschrift  des  Bergischen  Geschichtsvereins ,  xxx  (1894), 
p.  207.  Also  in  LB.  col.  1755. 

2  Erasmus  to  Tomicki,  September  2,  1532.  Miaskowski,  Erasmiana ,  no. 
27,  p.320. 

3  LB.  v,  470  ff.  Preface  also  Lond.  xxix,  37,  July  31,  1533. 

4  E.  Gossart:  Un  livre  d’ Erasme  reprouve  par  VJJniversite  de  Louvain. 

{Liber  de  sarcienda  ecclesice  concordia ,  1558).  1902. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  365 

of  an  open  letter  to  Amsdorf1  and  a  preface  to  a  lengthy 
refutation  by  Corvinus.2  In  the  former  he  reviewed 
Erasmus’s  Catechism ,  his  Method  of  Theology ,  his  Para¬ 
phrases ,  and  other  works,  and  asserted  that  all  of  them 
suggest  doubts  to  the  reader,  as  “Why  is  Christ  not 
called  God  but  Lord  in  the  Bible?”  and,  “Why  is  the 
Spirit  not  called  God  but  Holy  (or  saint,  sanctus)  ”,  thus 
proving  that  the  writer  of  such  words  is  an  Arian  and  a 
skeptic.  The  preface  to  Corvinus’s  pamphlet  remarked 
on  the  too  great  gentleness  of  this  author,  and  showed 
that,  while  agreement  of  faith  is  one  thing  and  charity 
another,  Erasmus  wanted  the  former,  though  Luther 
could  consent  only  to  the  latter.  Debate  and  mutual 
concession  were  vain  when  two  sides  were  so  fundamen¬ 
tally  opposed  as  light  and  darkness,  Christ  and  Belial. 

More  attention  was  paid  by  the  public  to  the  Letter  to 
Amsdorf  than  to  the  w~ork  of  Corvinus;  Luther  knew 
that  this  letter  had  displeased  Philip  Melanchthon,3  but 
that  it  was  applauded  by  others.4  One  of  the  humanist’s 
friends  answered  it,5  and  another  wTas  convinced  by  it 
that  Luther  had  softening  of  the  brain.6  In  partial 
mitigation  of  judgment  on  the  writer’s  virulence  it  must 
be  remembered  that  he  was  urged  on  by  flatterers,  from 
whom  he  received  false  reports  of  his  enemy.  One  of  the 
guests  at  his  table  spoke  as  follow’s  of  the  great  scholar:7 

I  knew  him  [at  Basle  1521-22]  and  of  all  pestilent  men  none  was 
worse  than  he.  A  certain  priest  told  me  that  he  believed  neither  in 
God  nor  immortality,  and  that  once  he  had  burst  forth  in  this  blas¬ 
phemy,  that  if  God  did  not  exist  he  would  like  to  rule  the  world  with 
his  own  wisdom. 

1  Enders,  x,  8  if,  circa  March  11,  1534.  Cf.  Enders  ix,  382,  showing  that 
Amsdorf  had  suggested  the  subject  to  him. 

2  Preface  to  Corvinus,  Quatenus  ex-pediat  aeditam  recens  Erasmi  rationes  sequi 
1534.  Luthers  Werke,  Weimar,  xxxviii,  273. 

3  Tischreden ,  Weimar,  iv,  no.  4899. 

4  Corvinus  to  Luther,  Enders,  x,  85. 

5  Egranus’s  answer  is  known  only  by  an  allusion  of  Luther,  Enders,  x,  36. 

6  Boniface  Amerbach,  who  sent  this  letter  to  his  brother  and  to  Erasmus. 
Burckhardt-Biedermann:  Bon.  Amerbach  und  die  Reformation ,  p.  297. 

7  Tischreden,  Weimar,  iv,  no.  4899.  The  speaker  was  one  Wolfgang  Schiefer, 
afterwards  tutor  to  Prince  Maximilian  II. 


ERASMUS 


366 

Shocked  by  the  letter,  which  he  described  as  “  simply 
furious,  and  so  wickedly  mendacious  that  it  might  dis¬ 
please  even  the  stanchest  Lutherans,  especially  as  it 
threatens  even  worse  things  to  come,”1  Erasmus  at  first 
reflected  that  it  was  impossible  to  answer  a  madman,  as 
Luther  now  plainly  showed  himself  to  be.2  To  Agricola 
he  wrote3  that  if  the  Reformer,  angered  by  the  Catechism 
he  had  recently  written  for  the  king  of  England’s  new 
father-in-law,  did  throw  his  books  out  of  the  schools 
and  deliver  his  person  to  Satan,  the  man  thus  slighted 
thought  none  the  worse  of  himself  for  all  that.  Loaded 
with  favors  by  emperors  and  kings,  he  could  well  dispense 
with  the  good  graces  of  the  Wittenberg  professor.  On 
second  thoughts,  however,  he  published  a  pamphlet4 
defending  himself  against  accusations  of  paganism  and 
blaming  the  violent  language  which  he  said  was  equally 
distasteful  to  him  by  whichever  side  it  was  used.  This 
apology  was  in  turn  rebutted  by  Amsdorf,  but  the 
humanist’s  life  did  not  last  long  enough  to  continue  the 
controversy  further. 

A  good  many  people  were  repelled  by  Luther’s  savage 
treatment  of  the  old  scholar.  Leo  Jud,  the  Swiss 
Reformer,  in  a  letter  to  Bucer,  blamed  the  Wittenberger 
for  this;5  and  a  general  reference  in  an  epistle  of  Julius 
Pflug  to  “those  who  deny  that  eloquence  can  be  united 
with  knowledge”  seems  to  point  to  the  Reformer.6 

With  regrettable  inconsistency,  however,  the  Reformer 
himself  continued  to  spice  his  works  with  transparent 
sneers  at  “Italo-German  vipers,  asps,  and  viper-asps” — 

1  To  De  Pins,  November  13,  1534;  Nimes  Manuscript  published  in  ap¬ 
pendix  to  this  book. 

2  To  Decius,  Miaskowski,  ep.  36;  cf.  letter  to  Melanchthon,  October  6, 
1534,  LB.  ep.  1273. 

3  Edited  by  Buchwald  in  Zeitschrift  fur  kirchliche  JVissenschaft  und  kirch- 
liches  Leben ,  v.  1884,  p.  56. 

4  Adversus  calumniosissimam  epistolam  Martini  Lutheri ,  LB.,  x,  1537  ff. 

6  Letter  dated  April  27,  1534,  published  by  Grisar  in  Historisches  Jahrbuch, 
xxxix,  1919,  p.  512. 

6  Letter  of  J.  Pflug,  probably  to  Erasmus,  May  5,  1533,  published  in  Archiv 
fur  Reformations geschichte,  xvii,  1920,  p.  231. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  367 

i.e.  Hyper  as  pistes}  His  table  talk  is  full  of  the  most 
rancorous  expressions;  a  few  specimens  will  suffice  to 
show  their  character:1 2 

Erasmus  wishes  to  leave  behind  him  the  faith  he  dares  not  confess 
during  his  lifetime.  Such  men,  who  will  not  say  what  they  think, 
are  paltry  fellows;  they  measure  everything  by  their  own  wisdom 
and  think  that  if  God  existed  he  would  make  another  and  a  better 
world. 

All  who  pray,  curse.  Thus  when  I  say,  “Hallowed  be  thy  name,” 

I  curse  Erasmus  and  all  who  think  contrary  to  the  Word. 

He  arrogates  to  himself  the  divinity  he  would  like  to  take  from 
Christ,  whom,  in  his  Colloquies  he  compares  to  Priapus,3  and  whom 
he  mocks  in  his  Colloquies  and  especially  in  his  detestable  Miscellany .4 

He  thinks  the  Christian  religion  either  a  comedy  or  a  tragedy,  and 
that  the  things  described  in  the  New  Testament  never  happened, 
but  were  invented  as  an  apologue. 

Erasmus  is  worthy  of  great  hatred.  I  warn  you  all  to  regard  him 
as  God’s  enemy.  He  inflames  the  baser  passions  of  young  boys  and 
regards  Christ  as  I  regard  Klaus  Narr  [the  court  fool]. 

When  Erasmus  died  Luther  expressed  the  opinion 
that  he  did  so  “without  light  and  without  the  cross.”5 

Even  wffiile  the  battle  was  raging  most  fiercely  with  ' 
Luther,  Erasmus  kept  on  the  best  of  terms  with  Melanch- 
thon,  whose  “fatal  charm”  he  acknowledged  and  whom 
he  hoped  to  retain  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  Because 
this  Hamlet  of  the  Reformation  designated  it  as  his 
misfortune  to  have  been  thrown,  as  Luther’s  lieutenant, 
into  the  religious  controversy,  the  Catholics  cherished 
constant  hope  of  winning  him  back  to  their  side  by  hold¬ 
ing  out  to  him  offers  of  a  quiet  and  honorable  position 


1  Preface  to  Bugenhagen’s  ed.of  Athanasius  contra  Idolatriam,! 532, Luthers 
Werke ,  Weimar,  xxx,  part  iii,  p.  531. 

2  Conversations  with  Luther ,  translated  and  edited  by  P.  Smith  and  H.  P. 
Gallinger,  1915,  pp.  105-114. 

3  In  the  Colloquia ,  Convivium  Religiosum ,  some  one  says  that  he  has  put 
Christ  as  guardian  of  his  garden  instead  of  Priapus.  LB.  i,  673E. 

4  I.e.  the  Farrago  nova  epistolarum ,  1519. 

6  “Sine  lux  et  sine  crux”;  Luther’s  Tischreden ,  Weimar,  v,  no.  5670,  anno 
1544.  The  phrase,  “Sine  lux,  sine  crux,  sine  Deus,”  was  first  applied  to 
Erasmus  by  the  Dominicans  of  Louvain.  Allen,  ep.  950. 


ERASMUS 


368 

in  which  to  pursue  his  dear  studies.1  The  first  serious 
attempt  to  detach  the  gentle  scholar  from  stormy  Witten¬ 
berg  came  in  1525  when  the  legate  Campeggio  sent  a 
prominent  Catholic  scholar,  Nausea,  to  confer  with 
Erasmus  at  Basle  on  this  plan.  When  he  had  published 
his  Diatribe  the  year  before,  the  author  had  felt  con¬ 
strained  to  write  to  Melanchthon  what  amounted  to  an 
apology  for  breaking  the  peace.2  Long,  he  protested, 
had  he  refrained  from  attacking  the  leader  of  the  Evan¬ 
gelical  cause  because  he  favored  renovating  the  Church, 
and  because  he  had  hoped  that  Luther  would  modify 
his  acerbity.  Only  under  the  intolerable  provocation 
given  him  by  Hutten,  in  the  fear  of  tumults,  and  in 
resentment  at  the  hauteur  of  other  reformers,  particu¬ 
larly  Zwingli,  did  he  consent  to  oppose  the  Saxon 
friar. 

To  this  advance  he  received  a  courteous  reply,  entirely 
agreeing  with  his  strictures  on  those  who,  forgetting 
humanity  and  religion,  had  arrogated  to  themselves  the 
name  evangelical.3  The  writer  was  sure,  as  he  commu¬ 
nicated  to  other  friends,  that  when  Luther  answered  the 
Diatribe  it  would  be  with  moderation.4 

Erasmus’s  rather  tart  reply  to  this,  reminding  one  of 
his  words  to  Pirckheimer  that  he  dared  not  be  civil  to 
the  Lutherans  because  of  the  “  sycophants,”  advanced 
the  position  that  no  one  hurt  Luther  as  much  as  did  his 
followers,  just  as  no  one  hurt  the  pope  as  much  as  did 
his  partisans,  and  that  the  extravagances  of  a  man  cor¬ 
rupted  by  applause  proved  that  the  cure  for  the  Church 
was  worse  than  the  disease,  for  it  is  useless,  even  were 
it  true,  to  instil  into  the  ears  of  the  people  the  idea  that 
the  pope  is  antichrist  and  that  there  is  no  free  will.5 

When  The  Bondage  of  the  Will  came  out,  it  was  no 

1  On  this  G.  Kawerau:  Die  Versuche  Melanchthon  zur  katholischen  Kirche 
zuruckzufiihren,  1902. 

2  September  6,  1524,  Lond.  xix,  113;  LB.  ep.  703;  L.  C.  ep.  633. 

3  September  30,  1524,  Lond.  xix,  2;  LB.  ep.  704;  L.  C.  ep.  637. 

4  Botzheim  to  Erasmus,  November  26,  1524.  Enthoven,  ep.  29. 

5  December  10,  1524;  Lond.  xix,  3;  LB.  ep.  714. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  369 

secret  that  Melanchthon  regretted  the  tone  of  his  friend.1 
He  saw  in  the  humanist’s  expressed  suspicion  that  the 
work  was  composed  by  the  joint  efforts  of  “the  church 
of  Wittenberg”  a  reflection  on  himself,  and  hastened  to 
meet  it  by  sending  word  through  a  common  friend  that 
he  not  only  had  no  hand  in  the  book,  but  that  he  took 
no  pleasure  in  Luther’s  bitterly  controversial  manners.2 
On  the  other  hand  he  found  the  Hyperaspistes  prolix, 
confused,  bitter,  and  unfair,  though  he  was  half  con¬ 
vinced  by  it  that  determinism  would  be  bad  for  the 
common  man.3 

The  pair,  so  much  alike  in  many  ways,  continued  on 
the  friendliest  terms,  the  veneration  of  the  younger  man 
and  the  policy  of  the  elder  to  use  him  as  a  brake  on  the 
Reformation  coach,  supplying  the  motives  of  occasional 
intercourse.  To  the  continued  wishes  expressed  by  the 
humanist  that  the  Reformers  would  try  to  promote 
morals  as  vigorously  as  they  endeavored  to  establish 
their  own  opinions,  and  to  frequent  lamentations  about 
the  tumults  of  the  times  and  the  perils  into  which  the 
cause  of  learning  had  fallen,4  Melanchthon  responded 
so  heartily  that  his  adviser  hardly  knew  what  his  position 
in  regard  to  the  Reform  really  was.5 

In  1532  Melanchthon  dedicated  his  Commentary  on 

1  Capito  to  Zwingli,  September  26,  1526:  Zzvinglis  Werke ,  viii,  725.  “Philip- 
pus  fertur  non  dissimulare  quod  Lutheri  acrimoniam  in  Erasmum  utpote 
virum  optime  meritum  de  bonis  literis,  parum  probat.” 

2  Melanchthon  to  Sigismund  Gelenius,  middle  of  July,  1526.  The  text  in  the 
Corpus  Reformatorum,  no.  393,  has  been  altered  by  the  editors  to  conceal  the 
reflection  on  Luther.  The  true  text,  given  by  Druffel:  “Melanchthon  Hand- 
schiften  in  der  Chigi  Bibliothek,”  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften,  Munchen , 
Sitzungsberichte ,  Phil. — Hist.  Classe,  1876,  p.  501,  reads:  “Erasmum,  quaeso, 
ut  mihi  places,  nam  quod  suspicatur  Lutherum  mea  uti  opera,  valde  errat; 
ego  enim  sua  acerba  conflictatione  minime  delector.”  A  letter  of  W.  Rychard 
to  J.  Magenbuch,  dated  Ulm,  September  3,  “anno  a  manifestato  Heliae 
spiritu  quarto”  (1524?)  speaks  of  Erasmus’s  suspicion  that  Melanchthon  was 
attacking  him.  J.  G.  Schelhorn:  Amoenitates  literarice,  1725,  ii,  306. 

3  To  Luther,  October  2,  1527;  Enders  vi,  97;  L.  C.  ep.  775.  To  Camerarius, 
April  11,  1526,  Corpus  Reformatorum,  i,  794.  L.  C.  ep.  730. 

4  Erasmus  to  Melanchthon,  February  5,  1528;  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchenge- 
schichte ,  xxxi,  88,  1910. 

1  Erasmus  to  Camerarius,  August  9,  1529;  Lond.  xxiv,  LB.  ep.  1071. 


3?o 


ERASMUS 


Romans  to  Archbishop  Albert  of  Mainz,  begging  that 
corrupt  and  Machiavellian,  if  somewhat  vacillating,  pillar 
of  the  Catholic  Church  to  provide  a  mild  remedy  for  the 
abuses  of  the  times.  On  October  25th  he  sent  a  copy  of 
the  lucubration  to  Erasmus,  expressing  by  an  accom¬ 
panying  letter  his  regret  for  the  violence  of  both  sides, 
neither  of  whom,  he  remarks,  “  will  listen  to  our  counsel. 
No  wonder  that  the  old  scholar  gathered  that  the  writer 
was  by  this  time  “disgusted  with  his  own  party”;2 
though  when  he  came  to  examine  the  Commentary  closely 
he  found  that  he  disapproved  more  than  he  liked  in  it,3 
and  a  little  later  he  observed  that,  though  Melanchthon 
might  write  more  mildly  than  Luther,  he  did  not,  in 
fact,  differ  a  straw  from  his  dogma,  but  was  “almost 
more  Lutheran  than  Luther  himself.”4 

Another  lover’s  quarrel  broke  out  when  the  sensitive 
old  man  saw  in  an  invective  against  insinuating  skepti¬ 
cism,  inserted  into  a  new  edition  of  Melanchthon’s  Com¬ 
monplaces  of  1535,  an  innuendo  against  himself.  To  his 
inquiries  the  author  replied  with  a  flattering  but  truthful 
expression  of  his  profound  respect,  and  a  disclaimer  that 
he  should  ever  attack  one  from  whom  he  had  learned  so 
much.5  In  some  lost  letter  of  these  later  years  he  did, 
however,  venture  to  suggest  that  the  humanist  might 
make  acts  square  with  his  words,  doing  more  for  a  cause 
for  which  he  had  said  so  much.  To  this  he  received  an 
epigrammatic  response  in  a  line  of  Greek  poetry:6  epya 
vecov ,  /3ov^6u  he  fieaov,  £V%ai  re  yepovrov  (Young  men 
for  action,  middle-aged  for  counsel,  old  men  for  prayer.) 

Doubtless  chafing  under  the  yoke  of  “the  almost  dis- 

1  Corpus  Reformatorum ,  ii,  617  ff,  with  wrong  date.  On  all  this,  G.  Kawerau: 
Die  Versuche  Melanchthon  zur  katholischen  Kirche  zuriickzufuhren,  1902,  pp. 
16  If. 

2  “Se  suorum  pigere.” 

3  Erasmus  to  Amerbach,  Corpus  Christi  (June  12),  1533.  Epistola  ad 
Amerbachium ,  no.  79. 

4  March  5,  1534.  Wierzbowski:  Materialy  do  dziejozv  Pismennictwa  Pok - 
kiego,  i,  1900,  p.  74. 

6  May  12,  1536.  Corpus  Reformatorum,  iii,  68  ff. 

6  Melanchthoniana  Pcedogogica,  ed.  K.  Hartfelder,  1892,  p.  176. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  LUTHER  371 

graceful  servitude”  which  he  said  Luther  imposed  on 
his  disciples,  and  feeling  the  attraction  of  the  gentle 
scholar  of  Rotterdam,  Melanchthon  was  planning  to 
visit  him,  when  he  was  prevented  by  the  old  man's 
death.  In  the  anguish  of  the  lost  opportunity  he 
expressed  himself  so  pointedly  that  murmurs  arose 
among  the  orthodox  of  Wittenberg  against  those  who 
would  rather  read  the  dead  Erasmus  than  hear  the 
living  Luther.1 

1  Cordatus’s  complaint  of  September  8,  1536.  Corpus  Rejormatorum ,  iii, 
159.  On  Melanchthon’s  planned  visit  see  C.  Gerlach  to  J.  Westphal,  July 
29,  1536,  K.  und  W.  Kraflft:  Briefe  und  DokumtnU ,  1875,  p.  77. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 

CONTEMPORARY  with  the  great  Lutheran 
movement,  largely  dependent  on  it  but  in  part 
owing  inspiration  to  different  sources,  there  evolved  in 
Switzerland  a  revolt  from  Rome  through  various  im¬ 
perfect  stages  to  a  consummation  in  Calvinism.  But 
though  the  genius  of  Geneva  finally  stamped  on  the 
Reformed  Church  its  indelible  character,  equipped  and 
organized  it  for  the  conquest  of  much  of  Europe  and 
North  America,  this  movement  took,  in  its  earliest 
stages,  and  from  its  first  captain,  a  free-born  son  of 
William  Tell,  a  spirit  of  liberalism  and  rationalism  later 
transformed  into  Republicanism  and  logical  philosophy. 
If  Ulrich  Zwingli  lacked  the  mighty  genius  of  Luther, 
the  piercing  vision  and  marvelous  gift  of  language  apt 
to  arouse  a  people  to  enthusiasm,  he  was  superior  to  his 
rival  in  a  certain  political  aptitude  and  in  a  somewhat 
greater  freedom  of  intellect.  Like  a  more  Christian 
Ulrich  von  Hutten,  or  as  the  Arnold  von  Winkelried  of 
sacred  learning,  he  led  a  free  people  to  a  freer  religion. 

That  this  child  of  the  mountains  and  the  forests,  born 
in  liberty  and  educated  in  the  humanism  of  Basle  and 
Vienna,  should  have  found  his  first,  and,  until  Luther 
appeared,  his  strongest,  inspiration  in  the  writings  of 
Erasmus,  omened  well  for  the  intellectual  and  moral 
quality  of  his  reform.  Imbibing  with  relish  the  “  phi¬ 
losophy  of  Christ, ”  tinctured  with  the  ethical,  perhaps 
Stoical  Christianity  of  its  expounder,  he  learned,  at  the 
age  of  thirty,  from  Erasmus’s  Expostulation  of  Jesus  with 
Man  that  Christ  was  the  only  mediator,  and  that  the 
hierarchy  of  angels  and  the  rites  of  the  Church  could  be 

372 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


373 


subordinated,  or  disregarded.1  “ I  do  not  remember,” 
he  confessed,  on  reading  the  Plan  or  Compendium  of 
True  Theology ,  “to  have  found  elsewhere  so  much  fruit 
in  so  small  a  space.”  With  enthusiasm  he  bought, 
studied,  and  in  part  copied  the  Greek  New  Testament 
at  its  first  appearance.  In  its  editor  he  found  the  great 
emancipator,  the  Christian  opponent  of  the  schoolmen 
and  the  equal  of  the  worldly  humanists.  Later  he  came 
even  more  completely  under  the  spell  of  Luther,  and 
perhaps  his  originality  consisted  more  in  a  genius  cap¬ 
able  of  combining  two  such  almost  incompatible  elements 
as  were  the  minds  of  these  two  men  than  in  anything 
else.  The  older  scholar  himself  recognized  his  own 
thoughts  in  the  commentaries  of  the  younger  disciple: 
“0  good  Zwingli,”  he  exclaimed  on  one  occasion,  “what 
do  you  write  that  I  have  not  written  before ?”2 

As  parish  priest  at  Glarus  Zwingli  made  a  trip  to 
Basle  early  in  1516  especially  to  see  his  idol,  soon  after¬ 
wards  writing  him  a  fervent  letter  of  thanks  and  appre¬ 
ciation  for  all  that  the  great  scholar  had  done  for  him.3 
Presently  he  received  the  following  kind  answer:4 

Your  affection  for  me,  as  well  as  the  festive  and  learned  eloquence 
of  your  letter  greatly  delighted  me.  If  I  answer  very  briefly,  impute 
the  fault  not  to  me,  but  to  my  endless  labors,  which  often  make  me 
less  kind  to  those  to  whom  I  should  least  wish  to  be  unkind,  but  make 
me  especially  unkind  to  myself,  drawing  off  the  force  of  my  intellect 
more  than  the  fifth  essence  could  restore.  I  am  very  glad  that  my 
works  are  approved  by  a  man  so  generally  approved  as  you;  and  for 
this  reason,  they  displease  me  less.  I  congratulate  Switzerland,  of 
which  I  am  very  fond,  that  you  and  men  like  you  polish  and  ennoble 
her  with  learning  and  character,  especially  Glarean,  a  man  singularly 
respected  by  me  on  account  of  his  various  learning  and  uprightness, 

1  Zwinglis  Werke,  hg.  von  Egli,  Finsler,  &  Kohler,  19905  ff,  ii,  217.  The  Ex¬ 
postulate  Jesu  cum  homine,  first  published  in  1514,  is  in  LB.  v,  1319.  On  the 
relations  of  Zwingli  and  Erasmus  see  S.  M.  Jackson:  Ulrich  Zwingli ,  1900, 
p.  86;  J.  M.  Usteri:  Zwingli  und  Erasmus ,  1885;  W.  Kohler:  “Zwingli  als 
Theologe,”  in  Ulrich  Zwingli:  Zum  Geddchtnis  der  Ziircher  Reformation  1519- 
1919,  cols.  23  ff. 

2  Zwingli  to  Vadian,  May  28,  1525.  Z.  W.  viii,  pp.  333  f. 

3  Allen,  ep.  401;  cf.  corrections  iii,  p.  xxv;  Z.  W.  vii,  ep.  13. 

4  May  8,  1516.  Allen,  ep.  404.  Z.  W.  ep.  14. 


374 


ERASMUS 


and  one  wholly  devoted  to  you.  .  .  .  Exercise  your  pen,  Ulrich, 
that  best  teacher  of  style:  I  see  that  natural  talent  is  there  if  only 
practice  is  added.  I  have  written  this  at  the  request  of  Glarean, 
a  man  to  whom  I  can  deny  nothing,  even  should  he  ask  me  to  dance 
naked.  Farewell. 

Henry  Loriti  of  Glarus,  thence  commonly  called 
Glarean,  a  warm  friend  of  both  parties,  in  his  efforts  to 
bring  them  together  again,  wrote  Zwingli  a  little  later  to 
ask  if  he  had  received  this  epistle,  which  apparently  lay 
unanswered.1 

After  accepting  a  call  to  Zurich  in  1519,  Zwingli,  by 
his  vigorous  reformation  of  that  city,  made  it  the  capital 
of  the  Swiss  revolt  from  Rome.  Hoping  to  win  the  older 
man  to  his  side,  and  in  strait  alliance  with  Hutten,  he 
made  another  visit  to  Basle  in  March,  1522, 2  probably 
inviting  Erasmus  to  Zurich,  but  receiving  only  a  polite 
refusal  coupled  with  the  advice  to  be  careful,  which  he 
apparently  did  not  resent.3  After  this,  correspondence 
was  renewed  vigorously  for  a  time,  and  has  luckily  been 
preserved  by  Zwingli,  for  Erasmus  never  published  it, 
jfearing  to  compromise  his  neutrality. 

In  these  early  years  Erasmus  was  popularly  regarded, 
in  Switzerland  as  elsewhere,  as  an  ally  of  Luther.  One 
pamphlet,  published  at  Zurich  in  1521,  claiming  to  be 
by  two  Swiss  peasants,  and  possibly  written  by  Utz 
Eckstein,  is  entitled,  “A  Description  of  God’s  Mill,  and 
of  the  divine  Meal  sent  by  God’s  grace  and  ground  by 
the  most  famous  of  all  millers,  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam, 
and  baked  by  the  true  baker  Martin  Luther  and  pro¬ 
tected  by  the  strong  Peasant.”4  Another  citizen  of 
Zurich,  Hans  Fiissli  the  bell-founder,  rejoiced,  in  a  poem 

1  Z.  W.,  vii,  ep.  1 7. 

*  His  intention  of  making  the  visit  is  spoken  of  as  early  as  June  19,  1520, 
Z.  W.  vii,  p.  329;  also  in  Jan.,  1522,  Vadianische  Brief sammlung,  ii,  415.  On 
the  visit  cf.  Z.  W.  vii,  440;  499. 

8  August  1,  1530.  Lond.  xxxi,  59. 

4  Dyss  hand  zwen  schwytzer  puren  gmacht.  Furwar  sy  hand  es  wol  betrackt, 
Beschribung  der  gotlichen  miily ,  13 c.  Copy  of  the  first  edition  at  Cornell;  re¬ 
printed  by  O.  Schade:  Satiren  und  Pasquille ,  1859,  i,  119. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


375 


published  in  May,  1521,  that  the  gospel  would  now  be 
preached  “by  the  splendid,  famous,  learned  man, 
Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  who  opened  up  the  right  way 
on  which  we  may  safely  go  to  the  true  Holy  Scripture, 
which  surpasses  all  things.”1  In  like  tone  a  peasant  of 
Thurgau  asked,  “Where  have  you  seen  that  anyone 
brings  forward  Paul  as  fairly  as  Erasmus  has  done?”2 3 

But  the  great  scholar,  as  soon  as  he  came  to  Basle  to 
live,  assumed  that  role  of  neutrality  which  seemed  con¬ 
cerned  mainly  to  prevent  violence  on  either  side.  He 
disliked  the  association  of  Zwingli  and  Hutten,  from 
which  he  inferred  no  gentle  methods  of  reform.  After 
seeing  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  generally  known  to  be 
by  Zwingli,  in  which  the  author  animadverts  severely 
on  the  proposition  made  by  Pope  Adrian  at  Nuremberg 
to  quell  the  schism,  Erasmus  wrote,8  December  9,  1522: 

It  is  kind  of  you  to  take  my  affection  for  you  so  well.  But  I  warn 
many  in  vain.  I  could  easily  bear  the  rashness  of  others  did  it  not 
compromise  good  learning  and  good  men  and  the  Evangelical  cause, 
which  they  promote  so  stupidly  that  if  anyone  wished  Christianity 
extinct  he  could  not  devise  a  better  method  of  bringing  this  about 
than  theirs.  Another  worthless  trifle  has  been  published  on  the  pope. 
If  the  writer  had  added  his  name  he  would  have  been  insane;  as  it 
is  he  has  produced  an  anonymous,  but  dangerous  and  bungling, 
article.  If  all  Lutherans  are  such  they  will  bid  me  good-by.  I  never 
saw  anything  more  inept  than  their  folly.  If  winter  did  not  keep 
me  here  I  should  go  elsewhere  to  avoid  hearing  it. 

Zwingli  apparently  did  not  take  this  warning  kindly. 
Erasmus  told  Melanchthon4  that  Zwingli  had  informed 
him  that  there  could  be  no  agreement  between  them, 
and  had  answered  his  admonition  as  proudly  as  if  he 
were  St.  Paul  in  the  third  heaven.  The  Zurich  priest 


1  Schade,  i,  22. 

2  Schade,  i,  161  ff. 

3  Z.  W.,  vii,  631  f.  The  work  was:  Suggestio  deliberandi  super  proposi- 
tione  Hadriani  Nerobergae  facia,  Werke,  i,  429  ff.  Other  warning,  vii,  582,  on 
the  Apologeticus  of  Zwingli.  September. 

4  September  6,  1524.  Lond.  xix,  113.  LB.  ep.  703. 


ERASMUS 


376 

himself  looked  back  on  the  breach  with  some  bitterness, 
remarking  that  though  it  was  caused  by  his  defense  of 
Luther,  he  had  only  lost  the  Dutchman  without  winning 
the  Saxon.1 

As  the  Reformation  drew  nearer  home  Erasmus  natu¬ 
rally  felt  its  impact  more  strongly.  The  innovators  at 
Basle  announced  their  break  with  the  ancient  episcopal 
government  on  Palm  Sunday,  April  13,  1522,  at  a  ban¬ 
quet  served  with  a  sucking  pig  and  embellished  with 
oratory,  much  like  the  old-fashioned  barbecues  for  polit¬ 
ical  purposes  in  the  United  States.2  Though  Erasmus 
and  his  friends  took  and  discreetly  expressed  offense  at 
this  method  of  purifying  the  Church,  they  were  forced 
to  see  a  great  addition  to  the  strength  of  the  Reformers 
when,  toward  the  end  of  the  same  year,  (Ecolampadius 
accepted  a  call  to  Basle  and  began,  early  in  1523,  to 
teach  at  the  university.  He  had  already  spent  three 
years  (1515-18)  in  the  town  helping  with  the  publication 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  and  his  ancient  friendship  with 
the  editor  presaged  a  peaceful  and  moderate  course.  At 
one  time,  indeed,  (Ecolampadius  had  turned  away  from 
the  new  gospel,  and  had  sought  rest  for  his  soul  in  a 
Bridgettine  cloister;  he  came  out  of  it,  after  two  years, 
aged  more  with  study  and  inward  struggle  than  with  his 
forty  years.3 

While  the  humanist  and  this  Reformer  lived  in  mutual 
respect  and  kindness,  a  very  different  aspect  of  the  move¬ 
ment  presented  itself  with  the  arrival,  in  1524,  of  William 
Farel,  a  man  on  fire  with  zeal  from  the  crown  of  his  red 


1  Zwingli  to  Blaurer.  May  4,  1528.  Briefwechsel  der  Blaurer ,  i,  148;  Z.  W. 
ix,  ep.  720. 

2  B.  Fleischlin:  Schweizerische  Reformationsgeschichte,  ii,  1908,  p.  337.  N. 
Weiss:  “G.  Farel  &c.,”  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  I’Histoire  du  Protestantisme 
frangais,  lxix,  1920,  115  IF. 

3  On  him  see  Realencyklopadie,  Allgemeine  Deutsche  Biographie,  Ulrich 
Zwingli  zum  Geddchtnis ,  p.  291;  E.  Stahelin:  (Ecolampadius ’  Beziehungen  zur 
Reformation,  1917;  Id.:  (Ecolampad-Bibliographie,  1918.  A.  Bigelmair,  in 
Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der  Renaissance  und  Reformation  J.  Schlecht  darge - 
bracht,  1917,  pp.  15  ff.  (Ecolampadius  entered  the  cloister  at  Altomiinster 
on  April  23,  1520,  and  left  it  January  23,  1522. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


377 


head  to  the  sole  of  his  gospeller’s  feet  upon  the  moun¬ 
tains.  After  a  public  oration  in  Latin,  on  February  28th, 
which  was  translated  on  the  spot  into  German  by 
(Ecolampadius  for  the  benefit  of  the  audience,1  Farel 
took  it  upon  himself  to  visit  Erasmus,  whom  he  had 
just  called  “a  chameleon  and  a  pernicious  enemy  of 
the  gospel,”  and  to  give  a  little  instruction  in  divinity. 
The  discussion  over  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
with  special  reference  to  the  comma  J ohanneum  or  spuri¬ 
ous  verse,  I  John  v:  7,  waxed  so  hot  that  the  French 
youth  told  his  elder  that  Froben’s  wife  knew  more 
theology  than  did  he,  and  that  he  would  rather  go  to 
the  stake  than  not  attack  the  humanist’s  fame.  He  con¬ 
trasted  the  simple  faith  of  (Ecolampadius  with  the  gaudy 
pretension  to  esoteric  learning  displayed  by  his  antag¬ 
onist,  and,  in  short,  acted  in  such  a  way  that  the  other 
believed  even  Luther  would  have  disapproved  of  him. 
How  easily,  remarked  Erasmus,  he  himself  might  have 
won  golden  opinions  of  his  erudition  by  calling  the  pope  « 
antichrist!  He  revenged  himself  by  fixing  the  name 
Phallicus  on  his  assailant,  and  by  having  him,  in  July, 
expelled  or  requested  to  leave.2 

Such  incidents  could  not  fail  to  turn  Erasmus  more 
than  ever  against  the  Reformation.  The  continued 
tumults,  as  he  wrote  Eoban  Hess,3  seemed  likely  to  dis¬ 
credit  not  only  the  Pseudo-Lutherans,  but  the  Reformer 
himself  and  all  good  learning.  At  the  same  time  he 
uttered  the  following  terribly  severe  arraignment  of  the 
fruits  of  the  Reformation: 

How  strong  a  man  is  Luther,  I  know  not;  but  certainly  this  new 
gospel  has  produced  a  new  race  of  men:  stern,  impudent,  wily, 


1  B.  Fleischlin,  pp.  364  ff.  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  p.  129. 

2  Erasmus  to  Anthony  Brugnarius,  October  27,  1524.  Lond.  xviii,  40;  LB. 
ep.  707.  Calvin  to  Farel,  February  3,  1551,  and  Farel  to  Calvin,  February 
14,  1551,  in  Calvini  Opera  ed.  Baum,  Cunitz  &  Reuss,  xiv,  42.  Hilaire  Ber- 
tolph  to  Farel,  Basle,  end  of  April,  1524,  Herminjard:  Correspondance  des 
Reformateurs  des  pays  de  la  langue  fran^aise,2  1878,  i,  21 1.  Peter  Toussain  to 
Farel,  September  2,  1524,  ibid ,  p.  284  ff. 

3  September  6,  1524.  Horawitz:  Erasmiana ,  ii,  ep.  7. 


ERASMUS 


378 

cursing,  liars  and  sycophants;  discordant  among  themselves,  obliging 
to  none,  disobliging  to  all,  seditious,  furious,  brawlers,  who  displease 
me  so  much  that  if  I  knew  a  city  free  from  this  sort  I  would  migrate 
thither.1 

Elsewhere  he  expressed  the  now  famous  opinion  that 
where  Lutheranism  reigned  learning  perished,  even 
though  the  Protestant  sect  had  been  particularly  nour¬ 
ished  by  learning.2  In  this  phrase  we  see  struggling  to 
expression  the  truth  that  the  Reformation,  though  in 
large  part  prepared  and  made  possible  by  the  Renais¬ 
sance,  afterward  turned  against  it,  dissociating  itself 
with  cruel  violence  from  the  freer  thought.  The  incom¬ 
patibility  of  the  two  spirits  is  well  set  forth  in  another 
letter:3 

I  see  how  hard  it  is  for  the  devotees  of  polite  literature  to  agree 
with  theologians,  and  again  how  the  theologians  are  scarcely  just  to 
liberal  studies.  The  long-standing  quarrels  of  princes  are  sometimes 
at  length  composed  by  a  marriage;  would  that  some  nymph  might 
arise  to  unite  you  in  mutual  benevolence,  by  which  the  studies  of 
both  would  flourish  more. 

The  main  point  which  divided  the  Reformers  among 
themselves  was  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist.  The 
theory  of  the  Catholic  Church,  transubstantiation,  is 
that  the  bread  and  wine  are  actually  changed  into  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  though  the  accidents  of 
taste,  form,  etc.,  remain  the  same.  Luther’s  theory, 
sometimes  called  consubstantiation,  was  nearly  allied, 
namely,  that  the  body  and  blood  were  actually  present 
with  the  bread  and  wine,  though  without  any  direct 
transmutation,  just  as,  to  use  a  favorite  simile,  fire  is 
actually  present  in  red-hot  iron.  While  Luther  was 
absent  at  the  Wartburg,  in  1521,  a  new  and  more 
advanced  opinion  arose  almost  simultaneously  in  several 
quarters,  that  the  Lord’s  Supper  was  a  commemorative 

1  To  Henry  Stromer,  1524.  LB.  ep.  715. 

2  To  Pirckheimer,  dated  1528,  probably  written  circa  February  21,  1529* 
Lond.  xix,  50;  LB.  ep.  1006.  On  date,  L.  C.,  no.  821,  note. 

3  To  Sylvius  ( circa  August,  1525),  Lond.  xix,  88. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


379 


rite  merely,  and  that  the  elements  were  but  the  tokens 
of  the  body  and  blood,  and  in  no  sense  identical  with 
them.  This  opinion  was  defended  by  a  Dutch  theolo¬ 
gian,  Honius,  by  Andrew  Bodenstein  von  Carlstadt,  one 
of  Luther’s  colleagues,  and  by  the  so-called  Zwickau 
prophets.1  When  Luther  returned  to  Wittenberg,  March, 
1522,  he  so  discredited  the  prophets  and  eventually  Carl¬ 
stadt  that  they  were  obliged  to  withdraw,  first  from 
Wittenberg  and  then  from  Saxony.  Carlstadt  produced 
a  number  of  pamphlets  attacking  Luther  on  several 
grounds,  among  them  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist.2 
His  "work  favorably  impressed  the  leaders  of  the  Swiss 
reform  movement,  men  far  abler  than  he  was,  Ulrich 
Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius.  Erasmus  wrote,  on  October 
2,  1525,  to  Michael  Buda,  Bishop  of  Langres:3 

A  new  dogma  has  arisen,  that  the  eucharist  is  nothing  but  bread 
and  wine.  Not  only  is  it  naturally  difficult  to  refute,  but  CEcolampa¬ 
dius  has  supported  it  with  such  copious  arguments  and  reasons  that 
it  seems  that  even  the  elect  may  be  seduced! 

The  truth  is  that  Erasmus  had  been  asked  by  the 
Town  Council  of  Basle  to  give  his  opinion  on  CEcolam- 
padius’s  tract  entitled  “Of  the  true  Understanding  of 
the  Words  of  the  Lord,  ‘This  is  my  Body,’  ’’and  had  given 
it  to  the  effect  that  the  work  was  learned,  eloquent,  and 
thorough,  and  might  even  have  been  called  pious  could 
anything  be  pious  which  differed  from  the  consensus  of 
the  Church’s  opinion,  from  which  to  dissent  was  always 
dangerous.4  His  position,  however,  was  so  ambiguous5 
that  each  side  saw  in  him  a  supporter  of  the  other.  On 
the  one  hand  Melanchthon  discovered  in  him  the  original 


1  This  opinion  also  held  by  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  as  one  of  them  had 
written  Erasmus  on  October  10,  1519.  Allen,  ep.  1021. 

2  Preserved  Smith:  A  Short  History  of  Christian  Theophagy,  1922,  pp.  122  ff. 

3  Lond.  xx,  60.  LB.  766. 

4  Bassler  Chronick  .  .  .  durch  Christian  Wurstisen  (1580),  ed.  of  1883,  book 
iv,  chap.  14,  p.  385.  Fleischlin:  Schweizerische  Reformations  geschichte,  1908, 
ii,  410. 

5  Cf.  his  letter  to  Lupset,  Lond.  xviii,  11;  LB.  ep.  790.  Internal  evidence 
dates  it  December  1525. 


ERASMUS 


380 

source  from  which  the  Swiss  had  drawn  their  doctrine;1 
on  the  other,  many  begged  him  to  defend  the  doctrine 
of  the  real  presence.2  Privately  he  expressed  his  doubts 
very  freely.  Thus  to  Pirckheimer  he  wrote:3 

CEcolampadius’s  opinion  of  the  eucharist  would  not  displease  me 
were  it  not  opposed  to  the  consensus  of  the  Church.  For  I  do  not 
see  what  is  the  function  of  a  body  which  cannot  be  apprehended  by 
the  senses,  nor  what  use  it  would  be  to  have  it  apprehended  by  the 
senses,  provided  that  the  spiritual  grace  were  present  in  the  symbols. 
But  the  authority  of  the  Church  binds  me. 

And  again,4 

I  should  have  some  doubts,  as  one  little  learned,  on  the  eucharist, 
did  not  the  authority  of  the  Church,  by  which  I  mean  the  consent  of 
Christians  throughout  the  world,  move  me. 

No  wonder  that  the  sacramentarians,  as  they  were 
now  called,  believed  that  the  great  scholar  was  either  in 
agreement  with  them  or  on  the  point  of  becoming  con¬ 
verted.  In  fact,  several  of  them  openly  claimed  him  as 
their  own,  the  most  forward  to  do  so  being  Leo  Jud,  a 
friend  of  Zwingli,  who  under  a  pseudonym  published  a 
German  pamphlet  entitled  The  Opinion  of  the  Learned 
Erasmus  of  Rotterdam  and  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther  on  the 
Lord's  Supper .5  The  ingenious  author  tries  to  prove  by 
quotations  from  Erasmus’s  works  that  the  humanist 
regarded  the  bread  and  wine  only  as  symbols;  and  then 

1  Melanchthon  to  Aquila,  October  12,  1529.  Corpus  Reformatorum,  iv, 
970.  S.  M.  Jackson:  Zwingli,  p.  85,  note. 

2  Toussain  to  Farel,  September  18,  1525.  Herminjard,  i,  385.  M.  Hummel- 
berg  wrote  Beatus  Rhenanus  on  November  2,  1525,  that  he  was  glad  to  hear 
that  Erasmus  was  going  to  write  on  the  eucharist.  Briefwechsel  des  Beatus 
Rhenanus,  p.  341.  Erasmus’s  warnings  to  Zwingli  and  Zwingli’s  comment 
in  Z.  W.  ix,  431. 

3  June  6,  1526;  Lond.  xxx,  44;  LB.  ep.  823.  See  my  Christian  Theophagy, 
148  ff. 

4  To  Pirckheimer,  July  30,  1526;  Lond.  xxx,  43;  LB.  ep.  827. 

5  Des  Hochgelerten  Erasmi  von  Roterdam  und  Doctor  Martin  Luthers  maynung 
vom  Nachtmal.  .  .  .  1526.  [Colophon:]  April  18,  1526.  Lodovicus  Leopoldi 
Pfarrer  z u  Leberaw.  I  use  the  copy  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  Tract.  Luth. 
46,  no.  18.  On  the  authorship  cf.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  iii,  32,  and  Vadian- 
ische  Briefwechsel ,  vi,  1906,  p.  265. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION  381 

deduces  the  same  opinion  logically  from  Luther’s  belief 
that  there  is  no  difference  between  priests,  who  conse¬ 
crate  the  bread  and  wine,  and  laymen.  In  both  cases 
probably  the  Zwinglian  view  of  the  sacrament  would 
have  been  the  logical  corollary  of  certain  admitted 
premises,  but  in  fact  one  cannot  deduce  any  man’s 
opinions  thus  syllogistically.  Consequences  ■  perfectly 
evident  to  one  man  are  often  denied  by  another,  and  so, 
while  Luther  was  unshaken  by  the  clever  work  of  Jud, 
Erasmus  was  moved  only  to  indignation.  Defending 
himself,  he  wrote  to  the  synod  then  assembled  at  Baden 
that  this  tract  showed  both  ignorance  and  malice,  and 
that  the  publication  of  such  pamphlets,  once  regarded 
as  a  capital  crime,  had  of  late  become  the  regular  sport 
of  men  claiming  to  preach  the  gospel.1  In  like  tenor  he 
published  an  open  letter  to  all  lovers  of  the  truth,  show¬ 
ing  that  the  deep  difference  between  himself  and  the 
Reformers  was  best  testified  by  their  attacks  on  him.2 

But  they  were  not  all  so  easily  convinced.  Since  1519 
there  had  been  at  Basle  an  Alsatian  Reformer,  an  excel¬ 
lent  Hebrew  scholar  and  a  personal  friend  of  Erasmus,  ' 
Conrad  Pellican3  by  name.  Though  he  inherited  from 
peasant  ancestors  a  homely  face  and  a  particularly 
firm-set  mouth,  his  friend  knew  him  to  be  “a  very 
childlike,  kindly,  sweet-spirited  man.”  Acting  on  the 
maxim,  unfortunately  not  universally  true  in  this  hard 
world  of  strife,  that  peacemakers  are  blessed,  he  tried 
to  persuade  the  great  scholar  that  their  opinions  on  the 
Lord’s  Supper  were  fundamentally  in  agreement.  The 
latter  assured  him,4  however,  that  he  was  mistaken  and 
that  the  writer,  having  been  persuaded  by  the  Church 

1  Lond.  xix,  45.  LB.  818. 

2  Lond.  xxx,  58.  Cf.  Praestigiarum  libelli  cujusdam ,  June,  1526,  LB.  x,  1557. 

3  See  his  picture  in  Ulrich  Zwingli:  Zum  Gedachinis,  1919,  pp.  1 13  f.  On  the 
man  see  Das  Chronikon  von  K.  Pellikan,  hg.  von  Riggenbach,  1877,  and  L.  C., 
ii,  p.  317.  The  correspondence  of  Pellican  and  Erasmus  on  this  subject  is  re¬ 
called  by  John  Laski  in  a  letter  to  Pellican,  dated  Emden,  August  31,  1544. 
Scrinium  antiquarium  sive  Miscellanea  Groningana  [ed.  Daniel  Gerdes],  1750, 
tomus,  ii,  pars  I,  pp.  530  f. 

4  Lond.  xix,  9s,  96;  LB.  epp.  845-847,  all  dated  1526. 


ERASMUS 


382 

to  accept  the  gospel,  would  always  learn  from  the  same 
mistress  the  true  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the 
Gospel.  To  the  statement  that  Zwingli  might  write 
against  him  the  humanist  boldly  replied  that  in  a  matter 
he  really  cared  about  he  feared  not  ten  Zwinglis.  On 
the  other  hand,  rather  than  drench  the  world  with  blood 
for  the  sake  of  a  few  ambiguous  articles  he  would 
dissemble  his  belief  or  disbelief  in  ten  such  points. 

The  expected  intervention  of  Zwingli  was  not  in  vain. 
About  this  time  he  published  a  pseudonymous  satire, 
The  Epistle  of  a  Certain  Frank  to  a  Certain  Citizen  of 
Basle ,  containing  a  bitter  criticism  of  Erasmus’s  position, 
both  for  his  reply  to  Pellican  and  for  saying  that  Christ 
was  really  present  in  the  eucharist  “in  an  ineffable 
manner.”  This  pamphlet  was  forbidden  at  Basle.1 
Erasmus’s  natural  anger  at  this  attack  aroused  the 
further  resentment  of  the  sacramentarians,  who  now 
regarded  him  as  “the  brother  of  the  Wittenbergers”  in 
his  eucharistic  doctrine,  and  as  having  lost  all  savor  of 
piety.2 

Though  occasionally  requested  by  the  orthodox  to 
write  something  on  the  moot  dogma,3  Erasmus  had  the 
prudence  not  to  do  so.  At  one  time,  indeed,  he  thought 
of  answering  (Ecolampadius,  but  abandoned  the  plan4 
because  he  feared  that  it  would  only  excite  tumult 
without  producing  edification,  and  because  Bishop 
Fisher  and  the  Sorbonne  had  taken  the  task  upon  them¬ 
selves.  In  fact,  the  desperate  earnestness  of  the 
Reformers  of  Wittenberg  and  of  Zurich,  each  of  whom 
would  rather  have  died  than  yield  a  single  point,  was 

1  Fleischlin,  ii,  410.  The  date  here  given,  October  23,  1525,  seems  too  early. 
By  “Francus”  does  Zwingli  mean  “Frenchman,”  “Franconian,”  or  simple 
“Freeman”?  If  the  former  he  may  have  wished  to  suggest  the  suspicion  that 
the  letter  was  by  Farel,  for  he  was  not  above  such  disingenuous  strategy. 

2  Capito  to  Zwingli,  September  26,  1526.  Z.  W.,  viii,  p.  725. 

3  Botzheim  to  Erasmus,  February  2,  1527.  Forstemann-Gunther,  p.  64. 
G.  Thomas  to  Erasmus,  August  31,  1527.  Ibid.,  p.  85. 

4  October  19,  1527,  to  Pirckheimer.  LB.  ep.  905.  Pirckheimeri  Opera  ed. 
Goldast,  p.  286. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


383 

highly  disgusting  to  the  man  of  charity,  and  in  his  eyes 
did  nothing  but  discredit  the  cause  they  represented.1 

With  another  type  of  Reformer  Erasmus  came  in 
contact  in  the  year  1522,  when  Balthasar  Hiibmaier 
came  to  Basle  to  confer  with  him  on  purgatory  and  on 
the  dark  places  in  John’s  Apocalypse,  but  went  away 
disappointed  with  the  man  “who  spoke  freely  but  wrote 
cautiously.”2  Hiibmaier  is  commonly  classed  as  an 
Anabaptist,  the  leader  of  the  left  wing  of  Protestantism, 
the  dissidence  of  dissent.  Though  he  himself  was  a 
university  man,  most  of  the  Anabaptists  were  uneducated 
and  sprang  from  the  lower  classes  of  society,  particularly 
after  the  poor  had  been  so  cruelly  rebuffed  in  the 
Peasants’  War  by  the  leader  of  the  Lutheran  established 
church.  Erasmus  noted  the  progress  of  the  sectarians 
and  truly  observed  that  though  they  won  large  numbers 
of  adherents  they  never  founded  a  church3  of  their  own. 
With  equal  discernment  and  fairness  he  remarked  on  the 
purity  of  their  lives,  on  their  constancy  under  perpetual 
martyrdom,4  and  on  their  aim  to  establish  a  new 
democracy  verging  on  anarchy.  When  seditious  he 
thought  they  should  not  be  tolerated.5 

Personal  influences  combined  with  others  of  a  more 
general  nature  to  make  Erasmus  tired  of  his  surround¬ 
ings.  Of  the  quarrels  thrust  upon  him  one  of  the  most 
disagreeable  was  that  with  a  young  Saxon  knight  whom 
he  learned  to  know  pleasantly  at  Louvain  in  1520. 
Henry  von  Eppendorf,  as  the  youth  was  called,  then 
went  to  the  University  of  Freiburg,  whence  he  kept  up 
a  witty  correspondence  with  the  humanist.  From 
Boniface  Amerbach  he  requested  and  received  the 
Epistolcz  ad  diversos ,  which  he  richly  annotated.6  His 
marginal  comments  reveal  his  warm  admiration  for 

1  To  Bucer,  November  n,  1527.  Lond.  xix,  72.  LB.  ep.  906. 

2  H.  Vedder:  B.  Hiibmaier ,  1905,  p.  54. 

3  To  Fonseca,  March  25,  1529,  Lond.  xxix,  33.  LB.  ep.  1033. 

4  To  Tunstall,  1525.  Lond.  xxii,  23.  LB.  ep.  793. 

6  Lond.  xxx,  77,  uncertain  date. 

6  Allen,  iv,  appendix  xiv,  pp.  615  ff. 


ERASMUS 


384 

Luther  and  Hutten  and  his  gradually  changing  feeling 
toward  the  scholar  whom  he  came  to  regard  as  a  rene¬ 
gade.  For  him  the  Saxon  Reformer  was  “thrice  great,” 
the  Dominicans  and  Hochstraten,  Eck,  Faber,  Prierias, 
Cajetan  “and  six  hundred  others”  were  scoundrels,  and 
Erasmus  was  eloquent,  but  cowardly  and  devoted  to  the 
princes  of  this  world. 

When  he  heard,  whether  truly  or  not,  that  the  humanist 
had  been  making  disparaging  remarks  about  him,  he 
came  to  Basle  in  1528,  and  let  it  be  known  that  he  was 
going  to  bring  Erasmus  to  justice.1  The  scholar  cared 
little  for  his  threats,  but  was  persuaded  by  his  friends  to 
allow  Eppendorf  an  interview.  Eppendorf  appeared,  and 
in  the  presence  of  Beatus  Rhenanus  and  Louis  Ber,  pre¬ 
sented  a  letter  purporting  to  be  from  Erasmus  to  Duke 
George  of  Saxony,  in  which  the  writer  advised  the  prince 
to  recall  Eppendorf  from  idleness,  and  at  the  same  time 
made  certain  disparaging  remarks  about  that  young 
gentleman’s  family,  and  certain  accusations  of  heresy. 
Erasmus  refused  to  recognize  the  letter,  which  was  in 
an  unknown  hand,  unsigned  and  unsealed,  as  his.  After 
a  dispute,  Eppendorf  declared  that  he  would  consider  the 
matter  and  communicate  his  decision  to  Beatus  Rhenanus. 

The  demand,  thus  transmitted  the  next  day,  was  that 
Erasmus  should  write  to  Duke  George  and  justify 
Eppendorf,  and  that  before  sending  the  letter  he  should 
read  it  to  the  latter  “lest  by  ambiguous  and  oblique 
terms  I  be  more  hurt  than  served.”  Furthermore, 
Erasmus  was  to  give  one  hundred  ducats  to  the  poor  of 
Freiburg,  one  hundred  to  the  poor  of  Basle,  and  two 
hundred  to  Eppendorf  to  dispense  among  the  poor  of 
Strassburg.  If  Erasmus  refused,  Eppendorf  would  risk 
his  life  rather  than  his  reputation.  Moreover,  as  Erasmus 
had  ruined  Henry’s  reputation  with  other  princes,  he  was 

1  Eppendorf  to  Zwingli,  February  3,  1528.  Z.  W.  viii,  p.  355.  “I  am  now 
here  to  force  the  great  Erasmus  to  retract.”  The  history  of  this  quarrel  is  given 
in  the  main  in  the  Admonitio  adversus  mendacium  (1530)  LB.  x.,  1683  ff,  and 
in  a  letter  to  Pirckheimer,  May  1,  1528,  LB.  No.  958.  An  excellent  summary, 
which  I  follow,  is  given  in  Bib.  Eras.  Admonitio  ...iff. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION  385 

required  to  mend  it  again  by  the  publication  of  a  pam¬ 
phlet  dedicated  to  him. 

Erasmus  gave  a  qualified  assent  to  the  articles  about 
the  pamphlet  and  the  letter,  and  said  that  he  preferred 
to  give  Eppendorf  two  hundred  ducats  rather  than  have 
a  law  suit.  Eppendorf  made  some  difficulties  about  this, 
and  the  matter  was  left  to  the  arbitration  of  Amerbach 
and  Rhenanus,  who  rendered  the  award  on  February  3, 
1528.  Erasmus  was  to  do  as  he  had  promised  in  the 
first  two  articles;  Eppendorf  was  to  suppress  anything 
he  had  written  against  Erasmus;  Erasmus  was  to  give 
about  twenty  florins  to  the  poor. 

Eppendorf  continued  to  make  trouble.  He  demanded 
the  letter  and  the  dedication  of  the  book  at  once. 
Erasmus  drew  up  a  draft  of  the  dedication,  but  refused 
to  publish  it  immediately,  as  it  seemed  to  him  ridicu¬ 
lous  to  print  a  dedication  without  a  book.  The  letter 
to  Duke  George  was  also  put  off  on  the  ground  that 
no  time  was  specified  and  that  the  conditions  left 
Erasmus  free  to  write  either  to  the  duke  directly  or  to 
one  of  the  court.  We  find  him  actually  in  February 
writing  to  both  the  duke  and  his  officer,  S.  Pistorius, 
though  not  exactly  in  the  sense  which  Eppendorf  would 
have  wished,1  for  he  mentioned  that  the  young  gentle¬ 
man  was  exciting  the  Lutherans  against  him. 

Erasmus  revenged  himself  characteristically  by  ridicul¬ 
ing  his  adversary’s  pretensions  to  noble  birth,  both  in 
private  letters2  and  in  published  works.  A  Colloquy,  first 
printed  in  1528,  holds  up  to  scorn  a  certain  class  of 
braggarts  under  the  title  “The  Horseless  Knight  or 
Counterfeit  Nobility.”3  So  does  the  following  passage4 
in  the  Adages ,  first  inserted  in  September,  1528: 


xTo  Pistorius,  Februray  5,  1528;  Horawitz:  Erasmiana  ii,  no.  8.  To 
Duke  George  (about  February  18),  1528,  ibid,  i,  no.  11. 

2  Erasmus  to  Egranus,  no  date  (1528),  Handschriften  aus  der  Reformations - 
zeit,  hg.  von  O.  Clemen,  1901,  no.  18. 

3  al7r7revg  avimrog  sive  Ementita  Nobilitas,  LB.  i,  834.  Cf.  D.  F.  Strauss: 
Ulrich  von  Hutten  ( Gesammelu  Schriften ,  1877,  Band  vii),  pp.  459,  512. 

4  No.  844,  LB.  ii,  350. 


ERASMUS 


386 

Among  the  nobles  of  Germany  there  are  some  imposters  who  bribe 
people  to  call  them  Junkers  (Ionckheri),  who  boast  their  paternal 
castles,  add  a  plume  to  their  helmets,  paint  a  coat  of  arms  in  which 
a  hand  holding  a  dagger  stabs  an  elephant,  and  subscribe  their  letters 
“knight.”  If  one  named,  for  example,  Ornithoplutus  is  born  in  the 
village  of  Isocomus,  he  doesn’t  call  himself  Isocomian,  for  that  would 
be  vulgar,  but  he  dubbs  himself  Ornithoplutus  von  Isocomus. 

The  name  selected  is  the  Greek  equivalent — though 
apparently  the  disguise  thus  far  escaped  detection — for 
Heinrich  von  Eppendorf.1 

The  peace  was  not,  therefore,  definitely  established. 
In  1529  Erasmus  wrote  Eppendorf,  who,  he  believed,  had 
been  accusing  him  publicly  of  perfidy,  that  he  did  not 
want  his  friendship,  but  would  like  him  to  keep  his 
distance,  for  one  could  be  hurt  by  worms  and  beetles. 
He  wondered  what  he  wanted.  Eppendorf,  then  at 
Strassburg,  replied  very  angrily  indeed.2 

On  the  whole,  Erasmus  had  the  best  of  the  battle.  On 
March  15,  1529,  Duke  George  wrote  him  regretting  the 
late  unpleasantness  and  stating  that  he  did  not  intend 
to  recall  Eppendorf.3  In  the  following  year  Erasmus 
published  his  Admonition  against  Falsehood  and  Slander ,4 
in  which  he  recounted  the  whole  affair,  much  to  the 
disadvantage  of  his  enemy.  The  latter  replied  with  his 
version,  February,  153 1.5 

But  though  unpleasant  personal  experiences  doubtless 
had  their  weight  with  the  old  scholar,  as  they  do  with 
other  men,  yet  his  attitude  was  fundamentally  far  more 
changed  by  the  increasing  pace  of  religious  revolution 
at  Basle.  Apparently  in  1525,  his  opinion  of  certain  re¬ 
forms  was  solicited  by  the  Town  Council  and  given  in  a 
memorial  not  published  in  his  works,  but  preserved  in 


1  Ornithos  equals  Hein  or  Hahn,  plutus  means  reich;  Isos  is  Eben,  and 
Comos  is  Dorf. 

2  These  letters,  the  first  without  date,  the  second  dated  only  1529,  LB.  epp. 
1087-1088. 

3  LB.  App.  ep.  349. 

4  LB.  x,  1683  fF. 

6  Bib.  Er.  Admonitio,  p.  ri. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION  387 

the  archives  of  Basle.1  In  the  guarded  tone  habitual  to 
him,  he  begins  by  saying  that  he  prefers  to  express  no 
opinion  of  the  Lutheran  movement  as  a  whole,  but  begs 
to  refer  them  for  a  more  learned  evaluation  of  the  same 
to  his  friend  Lewis  Ber,  provost  of  St.  Peter’s  Church 
and  professor  at  the  university.  But  on  a  few  points  of 
urgent  local  import,  the  humanist  consented  to  give 
advice,  though  he  knew  that  by  not  fully  indorsing  either 
side  he  would  anger  both,  and  though  he  was  conscious 
of  his  difficulties  as  a  stranger  ignorant  of  German.  In 
the  first  place,  then,  he  thinks  libellous  and  seditious 
books  should  be  suppressed,  as  well  as  works  on  con¬ 
troversial  points,  at  least  if  they  are  new.  Much  must 
be  winked  at  in  old  books,  or  else  even  Jerome  would 
not  be  printed,  or  any  works  save  the  canonical  ones. 
The  lucubrations  of  innovators,  like  Luther,  might  well 
be  tolerated  in  so  far  as  they  argue  temperately  without 
vituperation.  Ordinances  of  the  Church,  such  as  the 
use  of  images,  the  canon  of  the  mass,  chants,  ceremonies, 
tonsure,  and  vestments,  are  said  to  be  at  best  wholesome 
and  at  worst  harmless.  On  account  of  the  danger  of 
changing  old  customs  they  should  therefore  be  tolerated. 
Mass  should  be  restored  in  its  old  form,  though  probably 
permission  to  communicate  in  both  kinds  might  be 
obtained  from  the  pope.  Dispensations  might  also  easily 
be  obtained  for  not  fasting,  at  least  by  those  who  needed 
to  eat  meat.  Fugitive  monks  and  nuns  are  said  to  be 
unworthy  of  favor,  for  it  is  incredible  that  a  bad  monk 
should  make  a  good  citizen.  Cloisters,  on  the  whole,  are 
pronounced  the  best  places  of  refuge  for  such  people. 
Viewed  in  relation  to  the  history  of  the  time  this  docu¬ 
ment  is  notable,  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history 
of  liberty.  Its  quiet,  diffident  tone  should  not  blind  us 
to  the  fact  that  it  actually  proposed,  for  the  first  time, 

1  “Erasmi  Rot.  Consilium  Senatui  Basiliensi  in  negotio  Lutherano,”  C.  F. 
Standlein:  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der  Religion  und  Sittenlehre,  i,  1 797,  pp. 
294-304.  Bassler  Chronick  durch  C.  Wurstisen ,  ed.  of  1883,  book  vn,  chap,  xiv, 
p.  385  f.  C/.  B.  Fleischlin:  Schzveizerische  Reformations  geschichte ,  1908,  ii, 
384  ff. 


ERASMUS 


388 

a  plan  to  allow  for  differences  of  religious  practices,  and 
freedom  for  arguing  opposite  opinions,  within  the  same 
territory.  Hitherto  it  had  seemed  axiomatic,  and  had 
been  clearly  stated  by  Luther,  for  example,  that,  if  for 
no  higher  reasons,  yet  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  quietness 
one  form  of  worship  and  belief  only  should  be  tolerated 
in  one  territory. 

But  the  advice  shattered  at  Basle  on  the  rock  of  par¬ 
tisan  fury,  for  the  Protestant  leaders  continued  to  take 
counsel  as  to  how  to  suppress  Catholic  worship,  QEcolam- 
padius  early  in  1527  publishing  a  pamphlet  alleging  the 
examples  of  old  Jewish  kings,  and  branding  the  mass  as 
worse  than  theft,  harlotry,  treason,  adultery,  and  mur¬ 
der.  This  was  answered  by  Augustine  Marius,  or  Mayr. 
The  humanist’s  disgust  with  the  whole  proceeding  is  well 
expressed  in  a  recently  published  letter  to  his  friend  Ber:1 

Your  letter,  no  less  learned  than  pious,  relieved  my  mind  of  a  large 
part  of  the  disgust  caused  me  less  by  my  poor  health  and  the  wicked¬ 
ness  of  certain  men  than  by  the  public  misfortune  of  the  world;  for 
I  see  that  the  cause  of  Christianity  is  approaching  a  condition  I 
should  prefer  not  to  have  it  reach.  But  the  Lord,  the  Creator  of 
men,  wonderful  in  disposing  and  swiftly  changing  human  affairs, 
causes  me  to  retain  some  hope  of  a  happier  issue,  provided  only  that 
we  recognize  that  this  calamity  summons  us  to  the  philosophy  of 
wisdom.  Assuredly  I  have  reaped  some  personal  good  from  these 
great  evils.  There  are  certain  men  here  who  are  trying  to  put  this 
city  into  the  same  condition  that  Zurich  is  in;  nor  do  they  suffer 
your  man2  to  be  preacher,  though  he  seems  to  me  apt  to  teach  and 
not  at  all  seditious.  His  great  crime  is  that  he  attracts  large  audiences. 

Though  the  impression  continued  to  gain  ground  that 
Erasmus  was  more  Catholic  than  Protestant  and  could 
have  stayed  the  progress  of  reform  had  he  but  thrown 
his  weight  fully  on  the  side  of  the  conservatives,3  yet  at 
Basle  the  religious  revolution  went  its  way.  On  October 
22d  of  the  same  year  four  hundred  Zwinglians  met  to 

1  January  26,  1527.  Original  first  published,  L.  C.,  ii,  p.  532  f;  translation 
and  notes,  ibid,  ep.  752. 

2  Probably  Augustine  Mayr. 

3  Letter  of  James  Monasteriensis  (of  Munster,  or  of  Montier-Grandval),  to  a 
friend  at  Mainz,  dated  Solothurn,  January  29,  1528.  Quellenbuch  zur  Schweizer- 
geschichte,  hg.  von  W.  Oechsli,  1910,  p.  317. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION  389 

urge  the  Town  Council  to  abolish  Catholic  services,  but 
five  days  later  the  Council  announced  to  all  the  gilds  that 
everyone  should  be  free  to  exercise  which  cult  he  pleased. 
The  discontent  of  the  Protestants  found  vent  in  an  icono¬ 
clastic  demonstration  on  Good  Friday,  April  15,  1528, 
during  which  the  pictures  were  removed  first  from 
CEcolampadius’s  church  and  later  elsewhere.1  This  was 
done,  however,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Reformer, 
and  even  with  his  anxious  disapproval.  According  to 
his  account  five  zealots  began  on  the  day  of  Preparation 
(Wednesday  before  Holy  Thursday)  to  remove  the 
images  from  St.  Martin’s  Church,  and  their  example 
encouraged  thirty-five  others  to  purge  in  like  manner 
the  church  of  the  Austin  Friars  on  Easter  Monday.  The 
day  following,  the  Town  Council  convened  and  threw  the 
rioters  into  chains,  but  two  hundred  citizens  forthwith 
assembled  and  assumed  so  threatening  an  aspect  that 
the  Town  Council  withdrew  to  the  Wheelwrights’  Gild- 
hall,  and  even  there  was  forced  to  decree  the  freeing  of 
the  prisoners.2  This  failed  to  satisfy  the  conspirators 
and  further  riots  threatened,  in  the  opinion  of  (Ecolam- 
padius,  now  an  anxious,  worn  man,3  to  demolish  alto¬ 
gether  the  house  so  divided  against  itself.4 

The  pacific  advice  of  the  Town  Council  that  “no  man 
should  call  another  papist  or  Lutheran,  heretic  or  ad¬ 
herent  of  the  new  faith  or  of  the  old,  but  that  each 
should  be  left  unembarrassed  and  unscorned  in  the 
exercise  of  his  own  belief”  only  enraged  the  Protestant 
majority  further.  On  December  23,  1528,  they  accord¬ 
ingly  handed  in  a  petition,  probably  drafted  by  (Ecolam- 
padius,  demanding  the  suppression  of  the  mass.  Though 
the  Council  was  divided  equally  between  the  adherents 
of  both  Churches,  in  deference  to  this  and  under  pressure 

1  On  this  and  the  following  see  B.  Fleischlin:  Schweizerische  Reformations - 
geschichte ,  1908,  ii,  433  ff,  455  ff,  and  N.  Paulus:  Protestantismus  und  Toler  am , 
1911,  p.  198  ff. 

2  (Ecolampadius  to  Zwingli,  April  16-17,  1528;  Z.  W.  ix,  430  f. 

3  See  his  picture  in  Ulrich  Zwingli  zum  Gedachtnis ,  p.  34. 

4  (Ecolampadius  to  Zwingli,  April  20,  1528;  Z.  W.  ix,  436. 


390 


ERASMUS 


from  the  ambassadors  of  Zurich  and  Berne,  they  passed 
an  ordinance  forbidding  the  clergy  to  preach  aught  but 
the  pure  Word  of  God.  Anyone  in  doubt  as  to  what 
this  was  should  be  enlightened  by  a  biblical  discussion, 
and,  if  obstinate  in  his  own  opinion,  should  be  relieved 
of  pastoral  duties. 

It  was  now  the  turn  of  the  Catholics  to  take  the  offen¬ 
sive.  As  Erasmus  wrote  to  Sir  Thomas  More:1  “There 
was  good  hope  that  moderate  counsels  would  prevail, 
when  two  monks,  one  the  preacher  in  the  cathedral,  the 
other  preacher  to  the  Dominicans,  incited  another 
tumult  for  us.  They,  indeed,  made  their  escape,  but 
others  were  smitten  with  evil.”  The  two  men  referred 
to  were  Augustine  Marius,  or  Mayr,  and  Ambrose 
Storch,  commonly  called  Pelargus.  When  Erasmus’s 
letter  was  published  in  the  Epistola  Palceonczoi  in  Sep¬ 
tember,  1532,  Pelargus  took  offense  at  these  words  and 
expostulated  with  their  author.2 

But  the  party  that  started  the  trouble  this  time  was 
unable  to  control  it.  On  the  excuse  that  the  Catholics 
had  broken  the  law,  the  Protestant  mob,  composed 
chiefly  of  the  poor3  and  doubtless  aiming  partly  at  social 
as  well  as  at  religious  revolution,  gathered  in  the  public 
square  on  February  8th  to  the  number  of  nearly  a  thou¬ 
sand,  planted  cannon  in  front  of  the  Town  Hall,  and 
compelled  the  Council  to  expel  the  twelve  Catholic  mem¬ 
bers.  During  the  following  week  the  remaining  images 
were  destroyed,  Catholic  worship  suppressed,  and  the 
existing  ecclesiastical  polity  completely  subverted.  “For¬ 
sooth,  the  spectacle  was  so  sad  to  the  superstitious,”  wrote 
CEcolampadius,  “that  they  had  to  weep  blood.  While  we 
raged  against  the  idols  the  mass  died  of  sorrow.”4 

1  September  5,  1529,  Lond.  xxvi,  21.  LB.  ep.  1074. 

2  Bellaria  Epistolarum  Erasmi  Roterodami  et  Avibrosii  Pelargi  vicissim 
missarum ,  1539,  ep.  21. 

3  This  point  is  emphasized  by  the  chronicle  of  the  Dominican  John  Stolz, 
published  in  W.  CEchsli:  Quellenbuch  zur  Schzveizergeschichte,  1910,  pp.  318  f. 

4  To  Capito,  February  13,  1529.  B.  J.  Kidd:  Documents  of  the  Continental 
Reformation,  1911,  p.  466. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


39i 


This  Reformer,  now  a  dictator,  had  recently  shown  his 
thorough  conversion  to  Protestanism  by  taking  a  wife, 
the  young  and  pretty  widow  Wilibrandis  Keller,  born 
Rosenblatt.  The  mature  age  and  delicate  health  of  the 
bridegroom  made  him  the  butt  of  some  sarcasm  on 
account  of  this  step.  Boniface  Amerbach  mocked  thus: 
“The  wedding  would  wring  a  laugh  even  from  old  Sober¬ 
sides.  A  man  of  advanced  age,  with  shaking  head  and 
body  so  exhausted  that  one  might  call  him  a  living 
corpse,  has  taken  a  pretty  and  delicious  wife  about 
twenty  years  of  age.  0  Gospel!  O  marriage!”1  Erasmus, 
too,  commented  mirthfully  on  the  bridegroom’s  desire  to 
mortify  his  flesh  manifested  by  his  choice  of  a  particu¬ 
larly  charming  girl;  for  his  part  he  disagreed  with  those 
who  spoke  of  the  Lutheran  tragedy;  it  was  really  a 
comedy,  as  the  happy  ending  showed.2  The  new  gos¬ 
pellers,  he  remarked,  “sought  only  two  things:  good  pay 
and  a  wife,  for  the  gospel  gave  them  the  rest — that  is, 
the  liberty  to  live  as  they  pleased.”3 

His  thought  took  a  much  more  serious  turn  after  the 
“battle  of  the  idols”  in  1529.  He  knew  that  now  he 
must  leave  Basle  lest  people  should  think  there  was  a 
pact  between  him  and  the  sectaries  who  hated  him  so 
much.4  He  looked  with  dread  of  war  on  the  confederacy 
between  the  German  and  Swiss  cities,  and  with  disgust 
on  the  iconoclasts  who  pulled  down  images  “even  to  a 
fly,”  abolished  mass,  and  allowed  women  and  boys  to 
sing  hymns  in  German.5  “The  mass  has  been  abolished,” 
he  wrote  elsewhere,6 

but  what  more  holy  has  been  put  in  its  place?  ...  I  have  never 
entered  your  churches,  but  now  and  then  I  have  seen  the  hearers  of 

1  T.  Burckhardt-Biedermann:  Bon.  Amerbach  und  die  Reformation ,  1894,  p. 
207,  March  15,  1528.  CEcolampadius’s  announcement  of  his  marriage  to 
Zwingli,  of  same  date,  Z.  W.  ix,  390. 

2  To  Adrian  Rivulus,  March  21,  1528.  Lond.  xix,  41 ;  LB.  ep.  961. 

8  To  Pirckheimer,  1528  (1529),  Lond.  xix,  50;  LB.  iii,  1138  f. 

4 To  Francis  Vergara,  March  17,  1528.  Lond.  xix,  28;  LB.  ep.  1029. 

6  To  John  Vergara,  March  24,  1529.  Lond.  xix,  31.  LB.  ep.  1032. 

6  LB.  x,  col.  1578  f. 


392 


ERASMUS 


your  sermons  come  out  like  men  possessed,  with  anger  and  rage 
painted  on  their  faces.  .  .  .  They  came  out  like  warriors,  animated 
by  the  oration  of  the  general  to  some  mighty  attack.  When  did  your 
sermons  ever  produce  penitence  or  remorse?  Are  they  not  more 
concerned  with  suppression  of  the  clergy  and  the  sacerdotal  life? 
Do  they  not  make  more  for  sedition  than  for  piety?  Are  not  riots 
common  among  this  evangelical  people?  Do  they  not  for  small 
causes  betake  themselves  to  force? 

Naturally,  feeling  so  ill  at  ease  in  a  town  “  subverted 
by  the  CEcolampadian  whirlwind,”1  he  and  some  of  his 
friends  decided  to  leave.  When  the  citizens  learned 
of  his  decision  they  did  their  best  to  persuade  him  to 
stay,  (Ecolampadius  especially  protesting  his  regret  for 
a  departure  caused,  as  he  saw  it,  by  no  act  of  tyranny 
or  of  unkindness.2  A  personal  interview  between  the 
two  former  friends  failing  to  effect  a  reconciliation,3  the 
magistrates  called  upon  Erasmus  to  explain  first  why 
he  had  covered  his  face  with  his  cloak,  which  they  took 
to  be  an  insulting  gesture,  but  which  was  really,  he 
averred,  due  to  toothache;  and  secondly  what  he 
meant  by  his  joke  in  a  recently  published  Colloquy  about 
a  man  with  a  long  nose,  a  sheep’s  head,  and  a  fox’s 
heart,  which  they  applied  to  (Ecolampadius,  but  which 
the  author  protested  he  had  meant  to  characterize  his 
own  secretary.4  Having  finally  satisfied  them,  he  med¬ 
itated  a  secret  flight,  but  later  thought  better  of  it  and 
took  his  departure  openly,  on  April  13,  1529,  escorted 
to  his  boat  on  the  Rhine  by  a  concourse  of  friends  and 
at  the  last  moment  composing  a  farewell  quatrain  to  the 
city,  thanking  her  for  hospitality  and  washing  her  good 
fortune  and  never  a  guest  more  burdensome  to  her  than 
he  had  been.5 


1  Glarean  to  Laski,  S.  A.  Gabbema:  Illustrium  Virorum  Epistola,  1669, 
ep.  8. 

2  (Ecolampadius  to  Vadian,  April  29,  1529,  Vadianische  Briefs  ammlung,  iv, 
ep’  573‘ 

3  Exemplum  codicillorum  Erasmi  ad  J.  CEcolampadium,  Lond.  xxx,  47. 

4  To  Pirckheimer,  July  15,  1529.  Lond.  xxiv,  10.  LB.  ep.  10 66. 

5  Bassler  Chronick  durch  Christian  Wurstisen ,  1883,  p.  406.  Fleischlin: 
Schweizerischc  Reformations geschichte,  1908,  p.  465. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


393 


But  he  was  not  yet  done  with  the  Swiss  and  South 
German  Reformers.  A  book  he  wrote  in  1528  called 
An  Answer  to  some  Articles  of  the  Spanish  Monks 1  became 
the  occasion  of  a  new  quarrel.  One  passage  in  it  had 
remarked  that  formerly  heretics  were  much  more  leni¬ 
ently  treated  than  they  had  been  of  late,  and  proved  this 
by  citing  a  constitution  on  the  Manichaeans  from  the 
Justinian  Code.  This  passage  gave  the  opportunity 
for  using  the  name  of  Erasmus  in  favor  of  toleration 
of  the  Protestants  when  their  case  came  up  before  the 
Diet  of  Spires  of  1529.  There  was  a  certain  Reformer, 
Gerard  Geldenhauer,  of  Nymegen,  thence  called  Novio- 
magus,  who  had  been  educated  at  Deventer  and  Louvain, 
and  later  had  been  chaplain  to  Charles  V  and  secretary 
to  Philip  of  Burgundy,  Bishop  of  Utrecht.  Sent  by  him 
on  an  embassy  to  Wittenberg  in  September,  1525,  he 
had  gone  over  to  the  Reformers  and  began  to  occupy 
himself  with  teaching,  finally  winning  a  professorship 
in  history  at  Marburg.  In  1529  he  was  at  Strassburg, 
and  there  he  published  an  extract  from  the  work  last 
mentioned,  together  with  letters  of  his  own  driving  home 
the  point,  under  the  title  Erasmus’s  Annotations  on 
Ecclesiastical  and  Imperial  Laws  Concerning  Heretics , 
the  last  two  words  being  the  display  line  of  the  title-page.2 

Though  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  Geldenhauer 
had  any  intention  of  exploiting  the  humanist’s  name 
unfairly,  nevertheless,  the  attempt  to  drag  him  into  the 
controversy  once  more,  and  on  the  side  of  the  Lutherans, 
was  bitterly  resented  by  him.  His  wrath  took  form  in 
An  Epistle  against  those  who  falsely  boast  that  they  are 
Evangelical .3  This  comprehensive  attack  on  the  doc- 

1  Apologia  adversus  Articulos  quosdam  per  Monachos  Hispanos  exhibitos, 
1528.  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  s.  v. 

2  Collectanea  van  Gerardus  Geldenhauer  N oviomagus  .  .  .  uitgegeven  .  .  . 
door  J.  Prinsen,  1901,  pp.  vii  f,  xli  ff.  The  work  appeared  in  Latin  under 
the  title  Des.  Erasmi  Roterodami  Annotationes  in  Leges  Pontificias  et  Ccesanas 
de  Hereticis,  and  in  German  as  Ejn  Antwort  des  hochgelerten  D.  Erasmi  die 
ersuchung  und  verfolgung  der  Ketzer  betreffend ,  1529.  See  Bibliotheca  Eras¬ 
miana,  s.  v. 

3  LB.,  x,  1573  ff,  dated  November  4,  1529. 


394 


ERASMUS 


trines  and  morals  of  the  Reformers  was  answered  in 
April,  1530,  by  An  Apology  published  anonymously, 
but  really  written  by  Bucer.1  In  addition  to  defending 
the  rightness  of  the  Protestants,  the  author  asserts  that 
their  cause  is  a  growing  one,  and  undertakes  to  prove 
once  more  that  Erasmus  either  is  secretly,  or  logically 
ought  to  be,  favorable  to  it.  This  in  turn  drew  a 
Response 2  in  fifty  pages  repeating  in  more  detail  his 
argument  from  the  alleged  bad  moral  effect  of  the 
Reformation.  This  he  proves  from  the  fact  that  Luther 
had  recently  created  a  system  of  church  visitation  to 
regulate  the  disordered  morals  of  the  people,  and  by 
quoting  the  Reformer’s  own  words  that  he  would  prefer 
the  rule  of  the  pope  and  of  the  monks  to  that  of  the 
new  gospellers  who  used  their  freedom  only  to  live  a 
Sogdian  life.  From  this  and  similar  testimony  wrung 
from  the  words  of  Melanchthon  and  of  CEcolampadius, 
the  author  infers  that  the  chances  are,  even  from  a 
human  calculation  of  probability,  overwhelmingly  in 
favor  of  the  Catholic  Church,  rather  than  in  favor  of 
Zwingli  and  Bucer,  and  therefore  that  if  one  cannot  be 
sure  it  is  safer  to  cast  one’s  lot  with  the  former.  Among 
other  faults  of  the  Protestants  he  reckons  their  alleged 
hostility  to  learning,  and  especially  slurs  their  newly 
founded  academy  at  Nuremberg.  His  old  admirer, 
Eoban  Hess,  being  a  professor  in  this  institution, 
revenged  himself  by  a  flow  of  invective  in  Latin  verse3 
against  the  “ lurid  old  man”  who  from  a  god  had  turned 
into  a  stone  idol.  A  few  years  later,  however,  he 
relented  and  composed  a  dirge  for  the  “incomparable 
scholar.”4 


1  Baum:  Capita  und  Bucer,  i860,  p.  464. 

2  Erasmi  Responsio  ad  epistolam  apologeticam,  LB.  ix,  1589*  Published  as 
Epistola  ad  Fratres  Germanics  Inferioris,  in  Lond.  xxxi,  59,  dated  August  I, 

I53°- 

3  C.  Krause:  Eoban  Hess,  1879,  ii,  82  ff.  There  is  a  pun  on  Roter  Damm 
(i.e.,  red  dam)  concealed  in  the  lines,  “Deus  ille  invictus  Erythri.  .  .  .  Saxeus 
iste  Deus,  luridus  iste  senex.” 

4  Ibid.,  p.  209. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


395 


When,  on  October  n,  1531,  Zwingli  perished  on  the 
field  of  Cappel,  and  when,  a  few  weeks  later,  CEcolam- 
padius  succumbed  to  a  fever,  Erasmus  regarded  the  con¬ 
sequent  prostration  of  the  Swiss  Protestant  cause  as  a 
subject  for  rejoicing.  “Here,”  he  wrote  to  one  of  his 
Hungarian  correspondents,1  “we  are  freed  from  great 
fear  by  the  death  of  the  two  preachers  Zwingli  and 
CEcolampadius,  whose  fate  has  wrought  an  incredible 
change  in  the  mind  of  many.  This  is  the  wonderful 
hand  of  God  on  high;  may  he  complete  what  he  has 
begun  to  the  glory  of  his  holy  name!”  And  to  another 
friend:  “It  is  well  that  the  two  leaders  have  perished, 
Zwingli  in  battle  and  CEcolampadius  shortly  after  of  an 
ulcer,  for  if  Bellona  had  favored  them,  it  would  have 
been  up  with  us.”2 

But,  even  while  dissociating  himself  with  violence  from 
the  paths  of  revolution,  Erasmus  was  constantly  express¬ 
ing  his  own  ideal  of  reform.  He  had  another  opportunity 
to  do  this  when  the  Duke  of  Cleves  sought  his  advice  on 
the  proper  method  of  dealing  with  ecclesiastical  prob¬ 
lems.3  Little  is  known  of  the  negotiations,  save  that 
Conrad  Heresbach  was  sent  to  Freiburg  to  confer  with 
the  humanist,  who  praised  the  ordinance  which  was 
promulgated  in  153 2. 4  Much  of  it,  including  some 
provisions  usually  thought  to  be  Erasmian,  can  be  found 
in  earlier  ordinances  promulgated  by  the  Dukes  of  Cleves 
as  far  back  as  1491 ;  on  the  other  hand  his  direct  influence 
can  be  seen  in  the  increased  biblicism  and  rationalism  of 
the  new  laws,  in  the  treatment  of  ritual,  of  baptism,  the 
eucharist,  the  catechism,  the  worship  of  saints,  and  some 
ceremonies  which,  without  being  abolished,  are  given  a 
very  subordinate  place.  Perhaps  the  thing  most  signifi¬ 
cant  of  Erasmus’s  liberalism  is  that  he  should  have 

1  To  Nicholas  Olaus,  December  n,  1531.  Monumenta  Hungaricz ,  xxv,  175. 
Similar  expressions  in  a  letter  to  Queen  Mary  of  Hungary,  p.  176. 

2  LB.  ep.  1205. 

3  J.  Hashagen:  “Erasmus  und  die  clevischen  Kirchenordnungen  von 
1532-33.”  Festgabe  F.  von  Bezold,  1921,  pp.  181  IF. 

4  LB.,  App.,  ep.  512. 


ERASMUS 


396 

consented  to  participate  in  an  ecclesiastical  reform  pro¬ 
mulgated  by  a  temporal  authority.  Like  most  compro¬ 
mises,  this  ordinance  was  severely  dealt  with  by  both 
sides.  At  one  moment,  indeed,  it  attracted  the  attention 
of  the  Anglicans  who  were  also  trying  to  find  a  via  media , 
and  it  might  have  attained  international  importance  had 
the  marriage  of  Henry  VIII  with  Anne  of  Cleves  been 
happier.  But  the  German  Protestants  severely  criticized 
it,  and  in  1543  the  emperor,  acting  for  the  Catholics, 
forced  the  duke  to  kneel  and  confess  that  he  had  never 
meant  by  it  to  depart  from  the  Church.1 

For  Erasmus,  too,  the  only  result  of  his  attempts  at 
reform  was  to  excite  afresh  the  fury  of  the  monks.  The 
plague  of  hatred  endemic  at  Louvain  caused  him  to 
apply  both  to  Ferdinand  and  to  Pope  Clement  for  pro¬ 
tection.  The  latter  sent  a  special  message  by  his  emis¬ 
sary,  Theodore  Hezius,  to  Egmond  and  Vincent  Dierx, 
requesting  them  to  abstain  from  cursing  Erasmus. 
Though  these  two  theologians  were  still  of  opinion  that 
the  humanist  favored  the  Reform,  they  perforce  con¬ 
sented  to  forgo  further  animosities  felt  as  scandalous  to 
the  Church.2  To  Ferdinand  Erasmus  complained  that 
it  was  hard  for  him  to  suffer  from  both  sides,  and  begged 
him  to  request  his  sister,  Margaret,  Regent  of  the 
Netherlands,  to  stop  the  mouths  of  those  who  railed  on 
him  at  Louvain,  especially  of  that  brawler,  Egmond.3 
Though  Ferdinand  complied,  Erasmus  was  forced  to 
apply  again  in  a  few  years  for  another  intervention  on 
the  part  of  the  Chancellor  Gattinara.4  Maximilian  of 
Zevenbergen,  writing  this  news  to  his  friend,  Alfonso 
Valdes,5  says  that  the  monks  are  generally  more  hostile 


1  Die  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenzvart,  i,  2108. 

2  Letter  of  Theodore  Hezius  to  the  papal  secretary,  Blosius,  Liege,  October 
26,  1525  (?),  P.  Fredericq:  Corpus  Inquisitionis  neerlandicee,  v,  1900,  no.  782. 
H.  de  Jongh:  U Ancienne  Faculte  de  Theologie  de  Louvain,  1911,  p.  257. 

3  Lond.  xx,  23,  LB.  ep.  710.  November  20,  1524. 

4  April  29,  1527,  Lond.  xx,  6;  LB.  ep.  859. 

5  Flanders,  October  25,  1527,  Calendar  of  State  Papers ,  Spanish,  1527-29, 
no.  223. 


THE  SWISS  REFORMATION 


397 


to  Erasmus  than  to  Luther  or  to  any  heretic  worse  than 
Luther,  and  that  the  head  of  this  party  is  the  dean,  who 
teaches  nothing,  and  charges  a  great  price.  He  begs  his 
friend  to  procure  from  the  emperor  a  rescript  providing 
that  only  the  pope  or  the  Grand  Inquisitor  of  Spain 
could  judge  the  humanist’s  books.  He  also  hopes  that 
the  emperor  may  invite  Erasmus  back  to  Brabant,  as  the 
French  king  called  back  Lefevre  to  Paris,  for  he  thinks 
that  Erasmus  does  not  like  his  present  home.  The 
storm,  though  subsiding,  did  not  die  out1  and  on  July  I, 
1528,  Erasmus  was  obliged  to  write  a  protest2  against 
the  stupid  and  rancorous  book  of  Vincent.  After  this  it 
was  said  that  the  monks  were  silenced:  “ Peace  sleeps, 
or  rather  is  buried.”3  But  hatred  soon  became  active 
again.  On  the  rumor  of  his  death  in  1530  the  monks  of 
the  Netherlands  burst  out  into  wTild  cries  of  triumph.4 
Some  called  him  Errasmus  from  “erro,”  and  Erasinus 
“the  asinine,”5  and  one  doctor  bought  his  picture  in 
order  to  give  himself  the  delicate  pleasure  of  spitting  on 
it  from  time  to  time.6  “This  tyranny,”  he  complained, 
“is  the  result  of  Luther’s  violent  effort  to  give  us  free¬ 
dom”;7  and  again  he  asked;  “What  is  the  use  of  sup¬ 
pressing  Lutheran  books  if  these  Pharisees  intercept  the 
victory?”8  Cut  by  the  tongues  and  stoned  by  the  books 


1  Alfonso  de  Fonseca,  Archbishop  of  Toledo,  wrote  Erasmus  from  Madrid, 
June  29,  1528,  that  his  adversaries  have  at  last  learned  to  act  with  reason 
rather  than  oppression.  LB.  ep.  962.  Calender  of  Spanish  Papers ,  No.  479. 
Wrongly  dated  July  3d.  He  begs  him  to  write  against  heresy  and  sends  two 
hundred  ducats;  for  he  must  be  the  “  Romanus  Praeses”  mentioned  in  the 
letter  from  Alfonso  Valdes  to  Erasmus,  dated  Madrid,  June  29,  1528.  Letters 
and  Papers  of  Henry  Fill,  iv,  no.  465.  Cf.  Valdes  to  Erasmus,  Madrid, 
February  26,  1529.  Ibid ,  v.,  no.  641.  (Dated  wrongly  March  5th.) 

2  Lond.  xix,  82. 

8  Letters  and  Papers,  v,  no.  641. 

4  From  C.  Susquet,  Bourges,  August  31,  1531,  Enthoven,  no.  87. 

6  To  Alciat,  March  31,  1531.  Lond.  xxvi,  6;  LB.  ep.  1177. 

6  To  Mallarius,  March  28,  1531.  LB.  ep.  1176. 

7 Erasmus  to  John  von  Riedt,  October  1,  1528.  F.  and  W.  Krafft:  Brief e  und 
Dokumente,  p.  144. 

8  Erasmus  to  Nausea,  Day  after  Pentecost  (June  10),  1527.  Epistola  ad 
Ft.  Nauseam ,  1550,  p.  50. 


ERASMUS 


398 

of  both  sides,  as  he  expressed  it,1  at  times  he  waxed 
pessimistic,  seeing  no  hope  for  Germany  save  in  the 
intervention  of  heaven.  The  hatred  of  peasants  for 
lords,  of  the  people  for  princes  and  ecclesiastics,  the 
religious  differences,  the  menace  of  the  Turk,  the  exces¬ 
sive  luxury  of  the  wealthy,  all  combined  to  make  the 
outlook  exceedingly  dark.  Presently,  he  feared,  the 
signal  for  war  would  be  given  and  neither  he  nor  Freiburg, 
his  present  abode,  would  be  safe. 

It  is  remarkable  that  both  Protestants  and  Catholics 
should  have  attacked  him  in  the  same  manner,  by  making 
it  appear  that  he  agreed  substantially  with  the  Re¬ 
formers.  “The  deadly  parallel”  was  used  with  much 
effect  by  Albert  Pio,  Prince  of  Carpi,  a  nephew  of  Pico 
della  Mirandola  and  now  French  ambassador  at  Rome, 
who  prepared  a  work  consisting  largely  of  a  comparison 
of  passages  from  Erasmus  and  from  Luther,  with  the 
conclusion:  “Who  reading  these  words  will  deny  that 
Erasmus  Lutherizes,  or  rather  that  Luther  Erasmized 
when  he  began  to  go  mad?”  Hearing  of  the  forthcoming 
attack,  the  humanist  tried  to  ward  it  off  by  writing  the 
distinguished  author  that  he  had  nothing  in  common 
with  Luther.  Pio  received  the  letter  on  November  13, 
1525,  and  sent  his  Hortatory  Reply  to  Erasmus's  Expostu¬ 
lation  to  Basle  on  May  15,  1526,  having  it,  about  the 
same  time,  printed  at  Rome.2  He  is  particularly  severe 
on  the  Folly ,  and  objects  also  the  humanist’s  previous 
intercession  for  Reuchlin.  Carpi  sent  the  work  to  Paris 
where  it  was  published  in  1529,  and  where  it  was  trans- 


1  Natali  Divi  Johannis  (June  24),  1530.  Epistohz  ad  Amerbachium ,  no.  61. 

2  H.  von  der  Hardt:  Historia  liter  aria  Reformationis.  On  all  this  F.  Lauch- 
ert:  Die  Italienischen  Gegner  Luthersy  1912,  pp.  279  ff.  It  is  there  said  that  the 
first  edition  of  the  Alberti  Pii,  Carporum  Comitis,  ad  Erasmi  expostulationem 
responsio  parcenetica,  was  printed  at  Paris,  1529,  and  this  is  the  first  edition  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana.  But  an  edition  published  at  Rome,  1526,  has  been 
advertised  for  sale  by  J.  Gamber,  7  rue  Danton,  Paris,  catalogue  Ixiv,  no.  1934. 
Extracts  from  the  work  are  published  in  J.  D.  Mansi’s  Supplement  to  Raynaldo’s 
Annales  Ecclesice,  1755,  xii,  150  ff,  where  the  work  is  put  in  1516!  I  tried  to 
buy  the  work  advertised  by  Gamber,  but  he  wrote  me,  January  5,  1920, 
that  it  had  been  sold. 


ALBERTO  PIO 


399 


lated  at  the  author’s  request  by  William  de  Montmorency, 
though  the  translation  was  not  published.1  Erasmus,  who 
suspected  that  much  of  Pio’s  information  came  from 
Aleander,2  wrote  again  to  beg  him  not  to  publish,  and  also 
sent  a  missive  to  Pope  Clement  with  assurances  of  his 
orthodoxy.3  When  at  last  he  saw  the  attack  he  published 
a  polite  but  sarcastic  answer  to  it.  This  drew  forth  a  very 
elaborate  work  in  thirty-one  books,  pointing  out  passages 
in  his  works  which  Erasmus  ought  to  alter  or  retract, 
which  in  turn  caused  the  humanist  to  put  forth  a  bitter 
Apology  against  the  ravings  of  Alberto  Pio.  As  this  gentle¬ 
man  was  now  dead,  his  friend  Juan  Jines  de  Sepulveda 
advanced  to  defend  his  memory,  performing  the  task 
with  the  more  gusto  as  he  was  one  of  those  treated 
with  a  certain  condescension  in  the  Ciceronianus  4 
About  the  same  time  another  Italian  Friar,  Ambrosius 
Catharinus,  attacked  the  humanist,  saying:  “  Either 
Luther  Erasmizes,  or,  as  some  have  expressed  it  more 
harshly,  Erasmus  planted,  Luther  watered,  but  the 
devil  gave  the  increase.”  Again,  in  1 540,  Catharinus 
scented  Pelagianism  in  the  Free  Will ,  and  fiercely  fell 
upon  it.5 

In  other  cases  Erasmus’s  attempts  to  defend  the 
Church  excited  the  antipathy  of  her  sons,  who  cried, 
“Non  isto  defensore!”  His  book  on  Mending  the  Peace 
of  the  Church ,  which  aroused  such  dislike  among  the 
Lutherans,  also  proved  a  red  rag  to  the  Catholics.  On 
November  5,  1533,  the  papal  nuncio  Vergerio  sent  it  to 
Rome,  with  the  information  that  one  Augustine  Eugu- 
binus  “had  spoken  worse  of  Germany  than  was  ever 
written  of  any  province  and  had  even  named  Erasmus 


1  The  version,  which  must  have  been  done  in  1530-31,  exists  in  MS.  See 
Chantilly ,  Cabinet  des  Livres ,  2  v.,  1900,  i,  p.  167. 

2  To  Olaus,  February  28  (1532),  Monumenta  Hungaritz  xxv,  201;  cf.  En- 
thoven,  no.  164,  November  23,  1531. 

3  April  3,  1528,  Lond.  xx,  82;  LB.  ep.  961. 

4  Morel-Fatio:  Historiographie  de  Charles  V,  1913,  p.  44. 

6  For  all  this  see  F.  Lauchert:  Die  Italienischen  Gegner  Luthers ,  1912,  pp. 
63,  78,  131. 


400 


ERASMUS 


as  a  fellow  of  Luther. ” 1  A  few  years  later  the  same  book 
was  condemned  by  the  University  of  Louvain.2 

Trouble  was  also  brewing  in  Spain.3  The  first  serious 
manifestation  of  it  came  after  Alphonso  Fernandez  of 
Madrid  had  translated  the  Enchiridion  into  Spanish.4 
The  author  was  at  once  accused  of  heresy,  especially  of 
disapproving  the  punishment  of  heretics,  of  preferring 
marriage  to  virginity,  and  thinking  ill  of  the  Inquisition.5 
The  fanatical  fury  of  the  monks,  fanned  to  white  heat  by 
the  presence  of  the  English  ambassador,  Erasmus’s  old 
enemy  Edward  Lee,  found  vent  in  the  publication  of  a 
list  of  errors  attributed  to  the  humanist.  So  much  of  a 
bogy  did  he  become  that  a  riot  of  monks  was  awed  into 
order  by  the  imprecation  of  the  presiding  officer:  “May 
the  wicked  Erasmus  catch  you  if  you  are  not  quiet!” 
The  government,  however,  took  the  part  of  the  scholar 
to  the  extent  of  imposing  silence  on  his  enemies,  though 
they  still  questioned  suspected  persons,  like  Loyola,6 
about  their  supposed  Erasmian  views,  and  though  in 
1 53  5  Charles  V  made  it  a  capital  offense  to  use  the 
Colloquies  in  the  schools. 

All  this  time  Erasmus  was  doing  his  best  to  assert  his 
loyalty  to  the  Catholic  cause.  One  letter  gives  such 
prudent  advice  about  keeping  square  with  the  Church 

1  W.  Friedensburg:  Nuntiaturberichte  aus  Deutschland ,  i,  1892,  p.  139.  On 
Augustine  Steuchus,  called  Eugubinus  from  his  birthplace  Gubbio  in  the 
Apennines,  see  Bossert  in  Archiv  fur  Reformations geschichte ,  xvii,  1920,  pp. 
231  ff.  A  letter  of  Pflug,  dated  May  5,  1533,  shows  that  Erasmus  was  then  in 
correspondence  with  Eugubinus. 

2  Gossart:  “Un  livre  d’Erasme  reprouve  par  l’Universite  de  Louvain,” 
Bulletin  de  V  A  cade  mie  Roy  ale  de  Belgique ,  Classe  des  Letters,  1902,  p.  438. 

3  On  Erasmus  in  Spain  see  A.  Bonilla  y  San  Martin:  Luis  Fives  y  la  filosofia 
del  renacimiento,  1903,  pp.  123  ff;  H.  C.  Lea:  History  of  the  Spanish  Inquisi¬ 
tion,  1907,  iii,  414  ff;  H.  C.  Lea:  Chapters  from  the  Religious  History  of  Spain, 
890,  PP-  35  ff- 

4  Letter  of  Alphonso  Fernandez  to  Dr.  Lewis  Coronel,  September  10,  1526, 
published  by  E.  Bohmer:  “  Erasmus  in  Spanien,”  Jahrbuch  fur  romanische  und 
englische  Literatur,  iv,  1862,  158  ff. 

5  Bonilla  y  San  Martin,  “  £rasme  en  Espagne,”  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii,  1907, 
445- 

6  The  Autobiography  of  St.  Ignatius  Loyola,  ed.  by  J.  F.  X.  O’Connor,  1900, 
p.  101. 


PAUL  III 


401 


that,  notwithstanding  its  jocular  form,  one  must  believe 
it  to  contain  an  element  of  sincerity.  Writing  to  his 
friend,  Viglius  van  Zuichem,1  he  begs  him  to  avoid  getting 
mixed  up  with  the  sectaries,  and  illustrates  the  man¬ 
ner  in  which  this  may  best  be  done  by  the  story  of  the 
lawyer  who  fooled  the  devil.  When  the  arch-fiend  asked 
the  man  what  he  believed,  the  pious  lawyer  replied, 
“What  the  Church  believes.”  Seeking  to  entangle  him 
by  asking  what  it  was  that  the  Church  believed,  Satan 
was  foiled  by  the  legal  luminary’s  reply,  “What  I  do.” 

With  the  prelates  and  governors  of  the  Church 
Erasmus  got  on  better  than  with  the  theologians.  With 
his  old  friend  Sadoletus2  he  kept  up  a  friendly  corre¬ 
spondence,  and  when  Alessandro  Farnese  was  raised  to 
the  tiara  in  1534  under  the  name  of  Paul  III,  Erasmus 
wrote  him  his  customary  letter  of  congratulation3  prais¬ 
ing  him  as  a  true  follower  of  St.  Paul,  and  expressing 
his  wishes  for  the  peace  of  the  church.  He  advises 
political  neutrality  on  the  part  of  the  papacy,  and  the 
summoning  of  a  general  council  in  which  the  Protestants 
should  be  allowed  to  hope  that  they  may  obtain  their 
just  demands.  He  expects  that  this  would  restore  unity, 
as  he  still  thinks  that  the  majority  of  Christians  are 
untouched  by  heresy.  The  papal  secretary  replied  that 
the  pope  was  pressed  for  need  of  money,  and,  notwith¬ 
standing  his  desire  to  do  something  for  Erasmus,  was 
unable  to  send  him  a  present,  but  promised  another 
favor  instead,4  which  came  soon  in  the  appointment  of 
Erasmus  to  a  provostship  of  Deventer.5  Paul  III  him- 


1  LB.  App.  ep.  374.  November  8,  1533.  Luther  had  previously  (1531)  told 
a  similar  story  about  a  charcoal-burner  of  Prague  tempted  by  the  devil. 
Luthers  Werke,  Erlangen,  xxvi,  377  f. 

2  Two  of  these  epistles  reprinted  in  Epistolce  P.  Brunelli  et  aliorum,  ed.  F.  A. 
C.  Grauff,  1837,  pp.  381  f.  See  further  Lauchert:  Die  Italienischen  Gegner 
Luther s,  19 1 2,  p.  390. 

’January  23,  1535.  Published  by  Cardauns,  Quellen  und  Forschungen  aus 
Italienischen  Archiven.  xi,  202.  (Rome,  1908.) 

4  April  14,  1535.  Enthoven,  no.  127. 

6  W.  Vischer,  Erasmiana,  no.  vii.  Instrument  giving  it  to  Erasmus,  August 
1,1535.  A  letter  from  Paul  III  to  Queen  Mary  of  Hungary  urging  that  Erasmus 


402 


ERASMUS 


self  answered  that  he  desired  nothing  better  than  the 
peace  of  the  Church  and  that  he  counted  on  Erasmus’s 
help  in  securing  it.1  About  the  same  time  the  pope 
offered  him  the  cardinalate,  but,  though  he  felt  pleased 
and  flattered  at  the  offer,  poverty,  age,  and  infirmity 
prevented  him  from  accepting  it.2 

But  the  friendship  of  the  curia  did  not  exempt  Erasmus 
from  the  hostility  of  many  Romans.  A  pasquinade  prob¬ 
ably  written  before  his  death  represented  him  as  “  balanc¬ 
ing  the  papal  heaven  against  the  Christian  heaven,”  and 
compared  him  to  a  man  attached  to  two  columns  by  a 
rope  around  his  middle,  with  a  heavy  sack  tied  to  his 
feet  and  a  sail  between  two  horns  on  his  head,  the  whole 
apparatus  placing  him  in  such  an  unstable  position  that 
every  gust  of  wind  turned  him  upside  down  and  kept 
him  whirling  about.3 

Much  more  unpleasant  was  a  quarrel  fastened  on  him 
by  one  Peter  Curtius,  who  took  offense  at  the  slur  on 
Italian  courage  contained  in  Erasmus’  speaking  of  sar¬ 
castic  proverbs,  such  as,  “Learned  as  a  Scythian,  honest 
as  a  Carthaginian,  warlike  as  an  Italian.”  Curtius,  or 
one  of  his  friends,  thereupon  forged  a  letter  purporting 
to  come  from  Erasmus  to  Curtius,  imitating  the 
humanist’s  hand  and  even  his  style  not  unsuccessfully, 
but  full  of  scurrility  and  indecency  not  without  wit. 
Erasmus  is  represented  as  drinking  freely  with  his  friends 
Beatus  Rhenanus  and  Henry  Glareanus,  and  making 
merry  with  them  over  a  carving  of  tipsy  Bacchus. 
Erasmus  is  then  made  to  explain  that  he  had  never 
written  “an  unwarlike  Italian”  (Italum  imbellem)  but 
“unwarlike  Attalus”  (Attalum  imbellem),  for  Attalus 

be  allowed  to  occupy  this  position,  printed  in  Epp.  ad  Amerbach.  p.  119.  iv. 
August  5,  1535.  A  certain  Antony  von  Gumppenberg  wrote  Erasmus,  Au¬ 
gust  21,  1535,  from  Rome  that  he  has  procured  him  the  provostship, which  is 
said  to  be  worth  1,500  ducats  per  annum,  though  he  fears  it  is  not  half  that, 
and  has  a  good  house  included.  Forstemann-Giinther,  no.  225. 

1  Rome,  May  31,  1535.  Lond.  xxvii,  26.  LB.  ep.  1280. 

2  To  P.  Tomitz,  Bishop  of  Cracow’,  Basle,  August  31,  1535.  Lond.  xxvii, 
25.  LB.,  ep.  1287. 

3  E.  P.  Rodocanachi:  La  Reforme  en  Italie ,  1920,  i,  p.  148. 


A  FORGED  LETTER 


403 


was  a  man  called  by  Hecataeus  unwarlike  and  timid. 
Such  misprints  are  attributed  to  the  malice  of  the 
printers,  and  the  letter  continues  to  give  an  extreme 
example  of  this,  as  shown  in  a  misprint  said  to  have 
been  introduced  into  Erasmus’s  dedication  of  the 
Christian  Widow  to  Queen  Mary  of  Hungary.  Where 
he  had  written  “Atque  mente  ilia  usam  earn  semper 
fuisse,  quae  talem  feminam  deceret,”  the  printer  had 
substituted  for  “mente  ilia”  “mentula,”  thus  turning 
a  compliment  into  an  obscene  insult,  which  was  said  to 
have  been  printed  in  a  thousand  copies.  Though  when 
he  heard  of  this  forgery  Erasmus  at  once  protested 
against  it,  the  imitation  of  his  style  was  so  good  that  the 
spurious  letter  was  printed  as  his  by  Merula  in  1607, 
and  has  found  its  way  into  the  complete  editions  of  his 
correspondence  published  since  then.1 

1  The  letter,  dated  Freiburg,  January  n,  1535,  in  Lond.  xx,  68;  LB.  1276; 
Erasmi  Responsio  ad  Petri  Cursii  Defensionem,  LB.  ix,  1747.  Cf.  Jortin:  Life 
of  Erasmus ,  i,  557  f;  Nichols,  i,  p.  xxxviii,  474. — A  letter  to  Erasmus  from 
Martin  Dabrowski,  dated  Rome,  1536,  gives  him  information  of  the  political 
situation  there.  Published  with  one  from  Joseph  Tectander,  by  Miaskowski, 
in  Pamietnik  literacki,  xiii,  1914-15,  pp.  71-76. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG  IN  THE  BREISGAU  AND  AGAIN 

AT  BASLE 

THE  residence  selected  by  Erasmus  after  leaving 
Basle  was  the  Hapsburg  city  about  forty  miles 
north  of  that  town,  Freiburg  in  the  Breisgau.  Beauti¬ 
fully  situated  on  the  Dreisam  at  the  foot  of  the  Schloss- 
berg  in  the  Black  Forest,  this  archiepiscopal  see  was 
adorned  with  one  of  the  finest  Gothic  minsters  in 
Germany  and  was  the  seat  of  the  university  founded 
by  Albert  VI,  Archduke  of  Austria,  in  1457.  The 
attractions  of  the  spot  for  the  weary  scholar  consisted 
largely  in  the  promise  of  freedom  from  the  sects  and 
in  the  presence  of  several  warm  friends,  headed  by 
Ulrich  Zasius,  the  local  professor  of  jurisprudence. 

By  the  care  of  John  Faber,  Bishop  of  Vienna,  he 
found  awaiting  him  the  handsomest  house  in  Freiburg, 
then  known  as  The  White  Lily,  built  by  the  Imperial 
Treasurer,  James  Villinger,  in  1516  for  the  Emperor 
Maximilian.1  The  only  drawbacks  to  his  enjoyment 
of  this  royal  residence  were  that  he  had  to  share  it  with 
Dr.  Othmar  Nachtigall,  known  in  Latin  as  Luscinius, 
and  that  he  was  expected  to  pay  rent.2  But  these  proved 
so  serious  that  after  two  years  and  a  half  he  moved  to 
another  house,  known  as  The  Child  Jesus,  which  he  at 


1  H.  Mayer:  “Erasmus  in  Seinen  Beziehungen  zur  Universitat  Freiburg,” 
Alemannia ,  N.  F.  viii,  1907,  pp.  287  ff.  Cf.  Forstemann-Gunther,  p.  345.  In 
that  day  houses  were  named  instead  of  numbered.  This  palace  was  later 
dubbed  “The  Whale,”  and  is  now  Franciskanerstrasse  3,  occupied  by  a  whole¬ 
sale  wine  merchant,  but  preserved  in  the  old  style. 

2  To  More,  September  5,  1529,  Lond.  xxvi,  21;  LB.  1074;  and  Lond.  xxx, 
20,  LB.  ep.  1210,  1531. 


404 


THE  OLD  UNIVERSITY 


BUILDINGS  AT  FREIBURG  IN  THE 
BREISGAU 


From 


a  modern  photograph 


I 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


405 

first  rented  and  then  bought  for  a  thousand  gulden, 
again  selling  it  when  he  returned  to  Basle  in  1535. 1 

Crowned  with  his  own  fame  and  armed  with  a  special 
diploma  from  Ferdinand,  Erasmus  was  received  with  high 
honors  by  the  university.  With  him  to  Freiburg  he 
brought  the  whole  chapter  of  canons  of  the  Basle 
cathedral,  some  of  whom  were  given  teaching  positions.2 
Erasmus,  who  found  the  university  well  attended,  but 
not  well  served  in  any  faculty  save  that  of  jurisprudence, 
was  on  intimate  terms  with  the  professors,  and  was  by 
them  occasionally  consulted  as  to  appointments,  and  was 
allowed  to  keep  a  few  students  with  him  as  famuli.  On 
August  5,  1533,  he  enrolled  as  “Desiderius  Erasmus 
Roterodamus  theologiae  professor,”3  his  chief  object  in 
doing  so  apparently  being  the  desire  to  secure  the  pro¬ 
fessorial  privilege  of  freedom  from  taxes.  Just  two 
months  later  he  was  taken  into  the  university  senate,  on 
the  stipulation  that  no  heavy  work  be  put  upon  him. 

Never  content  long  in  one  place,  Erasmus  in  the  au¬ 
tumn  of  1531  paid  another  visit  to  Besan^on,  in  order 
“to  quench  his  thirst  with  good  Burgundian  wine.”  A 
letter  of  recommendation  from  the  emperor  secured  him 
a  splendid  reception  from  the  magistrates  of  the  town, 
and  perhaps  an  invitation  to  settle  there.4  He  thought 
of  going  further  to  see  Lyons,  which  he  remembered  from 
his  visit  of  a  quarter  of  a  century  before,  but  the  war 
between  Savoy  and  Berne  and  a  letter  from  Charles  V 
prevented  him.5 


1  Now  SchifFstrasse  7,  occupied  by  a  brewery,  rebuilt  but  with  an  inscription 
reminding  the  visitor  of  Erasmus’s  sojourn.  On  the  rent  and  other  details, 
letters  of  J.  Loble  to  Erasmus,  Forstemann-Gunther  epp.  153,  155,  184. 

2  Glarean  to  Laski,  Freiburg,  October  6,  1529.  S.  A.  Gabbema;  Illustrium 
et  Clarorum  Virorum  Epistolee,  1669,  ep.  8. 

3  H.  Mayer:  Die  Matrikeln  der  Universitat  Freiburg-im-Breisgau ,  1460-16 $6. 
1907.  Under  date. 

4  Erasmus  to  Secretary  Lambelin,  dated  October  26,  1532  (for  1531)  and 
letter  of  Charles  V,  October  1,  1531,  published  by  A.  Castan  “Granvelle  et  le 
petit  empereur  de  Besan^on,”  Revue  Historique ,  i,  1876,  p.  125. 

5  To  Dalbonus,  Abbot  of  Lyons,  November  27,  1530  (for  1531),  Lond.  xxv, 
41;  LB.  ep.  1147. 


ERASMUS 


406 

From  Burgundy  Erasmus  brought  back  with  him  as 
amanuensis  a  young  native  of  that  region,  Gilbert 
Cousin  of  Nozeroy,1  or  in  Latin  Gilbertus  Cognatus 
Nozerenus,  known  later  as  a  writer  on  law  and  history 
and  as  a  Reformer.  He  took  his  office  so  seriously  that 
his  first  published  work,  On  the  Duties  of  Secretaries , 
asserts  that  the  choice  of  a  literary  assistant  is  no  less 
important  than  the  choice  of  a  wife.  His  assiduity  and 
good  character  won  his  master’s  love,  even  though  this 
master  would  have  preferred  a  Catholic.  When  Erasmus 
left  Freiburg  in  1535  Cousin  attended  to  the  business  of 
winding  up  his  affairs  in  that  city,  and  then  took  a 
canonry  at  Nozeroy.  The  affectionate  correspondence 
continued  through  the  short  interval  until  his  master’s 
death  filled  him  with  sorrow.  In  the  Boston  Public 
Library  there  is  an  edition  of  Erasmus’s  Adages  of  1533 
with  numerous  notes  in  the  hand  of  Cousin  and  with 
two  epigrams,  one  in  Greek  and  one  in  Latin,  under 
Erasmus’s  picture.2  The  former  may  be  translated: 

Who  has  not  seen  Erasmus  living  will 

From  this  true  picture  know  him.  Could  the  skill 

Of  the  artist  but  bring  back  his  voice,  such  art 

Would  show  to  thee  the  image  of  his  heart. 

But  what  the  artist  could  not,  he  has  done; 

For  in  his  books  his  mind  shines  like  the  sun. 

That  is  his  truer  image  and  more  clear 

Than  is  the  one  the  artist  painted  here. 

Know,  therefore,  that  Erasmus  thou  dost  find 

When  in  his  works  thou  dost  admire  his  mind.3 

1  L.  Febvre:  “Un  Secretaire  dTrasme:  Gilbert  Cousin  et  la  Reforme  en 
Franche-Comte,”  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  I’histoire  du  protestantisme  fran^ais, 
lvi,  1907,  97  ff.  Professor  Edna  V.  Moffett  of  Wellesley  College  has  kindly  let 
me  see  her  unpublished  work  Gilbert  Cousin  (Cornell  Doctor’s  Thesis,  1907) 
with  photographs  of  unpublished  letters  of  Cousin.  Other  letters  in  G.  Cognati 
Opera ,  1562,  i,  296  ff. 

2  Adagiorum  Opus  Des.  Erasmi  Roterodami  per  eundem  exquisitiore  quam 
antehac  unquam  cura  recognitum.  Froben.  Basle.  1533.  The  notes  in  this 
volume  were  doubtless  for  the  edition  of  Proverbs  prepared  by  Cousin  as  a 
supplement  to  Erasmus.  G.  Cognati,  Opera ,  1562,  i,  86  ff. 

8  Later  published  in  LB.  i  (24). 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


407 


And  the  Greek  one  thus: 

How  Erasmus  looked  when  old  thou  canst  not  tell 
From  this  design;  ’tis  not  he,  but  his  shell.1 

These  last  words  remind  us  that  by  this  time  Erasmus 
was  getting  to  be  a  rather  frail  old  man.  “At  Louvain, ” 
he  wrote  to  Eoban  Hess,  recalling  the  visit  of  twelve 
years  ago,  “you  saw  the  shadow  of  a  man;  now  you 
would  see  the  shadow  of  a  shadow/’2 

Erasmus  continued  laboriously  writing  to  the  end. 
Besides  new  works,  and  editions  of  works  by  others 
superintended  by  him,3  he  kept  producing  revised  edi¬ 
tions  of  his  own  lucubrations.  A  new  impression  of  the 
Adages ,  for  example,  he  dedicated  to  Charles  Blount,  the 
son  of  his  old  friend,  Mountjoy,  in  the  following  beauti¬ 
ful  epistle:4 

It  must  be  your  especial  care,  dear  Charles,  to  be  a  true  son  of  your 
accomplished  father,  the  true  heir  of  his  excellence,  not  to  degenerate 
from  his  culture  and  to  prepare  yourself  to  inherit  his  virtue  even 
more  than  his  advantages.  For  although  he  is  of  illustrious  descent, 
and  does  not  lack  wealth  suitable  to  his  birth,  yet  if  you  consider 
him  as  a  whole  he  is  both  more  illustrious  and  richer  in  virtue  and 
learning  than  in  race  and  possessions.  Although  neither  law  nor 
custom  allows  children  to  take  possession  of  their  father’s  goods 
before  their  death,  yet  ought  they,  from  their  earliest  infancy,  to  take 
their  heritage  of  those  things  which  are  really  goods.  Your  father’s 
kindness  desires  this,  and  the  most  splendid  foundations  are  laid  for 
it  in  your  training  in  the  classics,  as  much  as  your  age  allows.  You 
have  no  dull  spurs  to  urge  you  on:  first  your  father  himself;  then  the 
example  of  that  noble  maid,  of  almost  the  same  age  as  yourself,  the 
Princess  Mary,  daughter  of  a  learned  king  and  a  learned  and  pious 
queen,  who  now  writes  letters  in  good  Latin  and  of  content  showing 
a  nature  worthy  of  her  extraction;  and  finally  you  have  the  example 
of  the  daughters  of  the  More  family,  that  chorus  of  Muses,  so  that  I 
do  not  see  that  anything  is  wanting  to  stimulate  your  ambition. 

1  Wkovo.  ravTTjv  of  rcg  opa£  rpryepovrog  ’’Epacpov 
Ovk  avdpuTTOv  opas  d/l/ld  to  ovtpap  6pa<;. 

8  To  Hess,  1531,  C.  Krause:  Helius  Eobanus  Hessus,  1879,  i,  287,  note. 

3  As  e.g.  the  translation  of  Chrysostom  undertaken  by  Germaine  Brice  at 
Erasmus’s  request.  Forstemann-Gunther,  no.  140. 

4  Enthoven,  p.  202.  1528.  Blount’s  answer,  June,  26,  1529,  ibid.,  no.  74. 
Erasmus  later  dedicated  his  Livy  to  Blount.  Preface  March  I,  1531. 
Lond.  xviii,  15;  LB.  ep.  1160. 


ERASMUS 


408 

I  am  writing  to  say  that  you  will  now  share  with  your  father  the 
possession  of  the  Adages ,  which  was  long  ago  dedicated  to  him,  by 
which  you  will  detract  nothing  from  his  glory,  but  will  add  much  to 
the  book,  for,  if  I  mistake  not,  you  will  reap  much  fruit  therefrom. 
It  is  nothing  new  to  dedicate  the  same  work  to  several  people,  and 
were  it  new  I  would  answer  for  it  that  the  father  and  the  son  who 
so  much  resembles  him  should  be  considered  rather  one  person  than 
two.  For  what  is  a  son  but  a  father  renewing  his  youth  in  another 
self?  And  perchance  your  father,  absorbed  in  the  business  of  the 
court,  has  no  more  leisure  for  such  things  and  willingly  hands  the 
lamp  to  you.  Read  it,  therefore,  Charles,  and  while  reading  think 
that  it  is  Erasmus  talking  to  you.  The  Lord  Jesus  keep  and  prosper 
your  whole  life,  accomplished  boy. 

Young  Blount  answered  this  dedication  with  an 
epistle  which  drew  forth  from  the  humanist  the  rather 
fulsome  exclamation,  that  if  he  could  write  such  Latin 
unaided  it  was  time  for  Erasmus  to  give  up  the  pen.1 

To  John  More,  the  son  of  another  old  friend,  he  dedi¬ 
cated  his  Aristotle,2 3  and  an  edition  of  Ovid’s  Nut? 

A  work  of  the  kind  in  which  Erasmus  especially  de¬ 
lighted  was  the  Apophthegmata  (first  edition,  Froben, 
March,  1531),  a  collection  of  “egregie  dicta”  attributed 
to  famous  men  of  antiquity.  The  foundation  of  his  work 
was  that  of  Plutarch.4  As  usual,  he  kept  working  at  the 
piece  after  its  publication,  and  in  1532  issued  an  edition 
in  which  the  original  six  books  were  expanded  to  eight. 
Though  not  one  of  his  more  famous  books,  the  Apo¬ 
thegms ,  attained  considerable  popularity,  being  trans¬ 
lated  into  English  by  Taverner  in  1540  and  by  Nicholas 
Udall  in  1542.5 

An  extant  copy  of  the  Apothegms  with  notes  in  Luther’s 
hand,6  furnishes  interesting  testimony  that,  however 

1  To  Lord  Mountjoy,  March  18,  1531.  Lond.  xxvi,  39.  LB.  1174. 

2  February  27,  1531.  Lond.  xxviii,  13.  LB.  ep.  1159. 

3  In  1524.  Lond.  xxix,  26. 

4  Erasmus  defended  himself  from  the  charge  of  having  plagiarized  from  the 
recent  translations  of  Plutarch  by  Filelfo  and  Rhegius.  On  the  whole  sub¬ 
ject  see  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana.  Apophthegmata.  1901. 

5  Ibid.,  180. 

6  G.  Kawerau:  “Luthers  Randglossen  zu  einer  Schrift  des  Erasmus,” 
Zeitschrift  fur  kirchliche  Wissenschaft  und  kirchliches  Leben,  1889,  p.  599.  The 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


409 


much  the  Reformer  disagreed  with  the  man  of  letters, 
he  continued  to  buy  his  books.  The  severely  critical 
animus  of  the  annotator  dissents  from  many  of  the  say¬ 
ings  of  the  author.  When,  for  example,  Erasmus  says, 
“Wise  men  judge  an  unexpected  and  sudden  death  the 
best,”  Luther  adds,  “These  are  the  words  of  impiety.”1 

Other  late  works  were  the  Catechism  or  Explanation  0} 
the  Apostles’  Creed ,  a  brief  summary  of  the  necessary 
articles  of  faith,2  and  the  Method  of  Preaching ,  covering 
a  large  part  of  the  field  of  practical  theology  as  well  as 
that  of  homiletics.  Originally  written  as  a  gift  to 
Bishop  Fisher  it  wTas,  on  his  sad  death,  dedicated  to 
Christopher  von  Stadion,  Bishop  of  Basle.3 

Friends  and  admirers  without  number  either  came, 
during  these  last  years,  to  pay  their  homage  to  the  prince 
of  the  humanists,  or  poured  on  him  an  immense  quantity 
of  letters.  The  correspondence  published  by  himself  and 
his  executors  fell  off  during  the  last  four  years  of  his  life; 
for  the  years  1532-36  only  seventy-two  letters  were  thus 
published,  and  of  them  the  majority  not  by  but  to  him. 
Since  that  time  from  his  letter-books  at  least  three  times 
that  number  has  come  to  light;  of  these  also  the  majority 
were  by  his  friends.  Kings,  princes,  prelates,  and  men 
of  genius  in  affairs  and  in  learning  contributed  to  the 
treasury  of  his  praise.  With  the  King  of  Poland  and  with 
his  bishop  John  Dantiscus  he  was  in  communication.4 
Queen  Mary  of  Hungary,  to  whom  he  had  dedicated  his 
Christian  Widow ,  replied  with  gracious  invitations, 


book  is  the  edition  of  Leyden,  1541,  was  given  away  by  Luther  in  1543,  and 
later  came  into  possession  of  his  son  Paul. 

1  Of  course  sudden  death  wTas  regarded  as  a  divine  punishment,  and  Luther’s 
position  is  that  of  the  Church. 

2  LB.  v,  1133.  Luther’s  poor  opinion  of  this  work  also  expressed  in  Lauter- 
bachs  Tagebuch  auf  das  Jahr  1538 ,  hg.  von  J.  K.  Seidemann,  p.  48. 

3  LB.  v,  767. 

4  Erasmus  to  King  Sigismund,  August  28,  1528,  LB.  iii,  col.  1098;  Mias- 
kowski  ( Jahrbuch  fur  Philosophic ,  xiv,  1900,  p.  351)  states  that  this  letter 
should  be  in  1535,  but  he  is  wrong.  Other  correspondence  of  Erasmus  with  the 
Poles  published  by  him,  and  also  found  in  Acta  Tomiciana:  Epistolce,  Lega- 
tionesy  Responsa,  Actiones,  Regestce  Sigismundi  I.  Vols.  1-13,  1852-1915. 


4io 


ERASMUS 


thanks,  and  compliments.1  With  those  kings  of  com¬ 
merce,  the  Fuggers,  Erasmus  was  also  in  correspondence.2 

Among  the  many  promising  youths  who  sought  the 
acquaintance  of  Erasmus  not  in  vain,  one  to  make  his 
mark  later  as  a  humanist  and  statesman,  and  as  a  sup¬ 
porter  of  the  policy  of  Charles  V  and  Philip  II  in  the 
Netherlands,  was  Viglius  van  Aytta  van  Zuichem.  In 
addition  to  the  correspondence  published  in  Erasmus’s 
works,  fourteen  interesting  letters,  relating  to  the  young 
man’s  studies  in  France,  Italy,  and  Switzerland,  have 
since  come  to  light.3 

Another  correspondent  was  Ambrose  Storch,  or 
Pelargus,  of  Cologne,  a  well-known  Catholic  theologian 
in  his  day.  Thirty-five  of  their  letters  and  one  of 
Erasmus  to  the  Archbishop  of  Trier,  not  found  elsewhere, 
were  published  by  Storch  in  1539.4  Half  the  volume 
is  taken  up  with  Storch’s  Judgment  of  Erasmus’s 
Declamations  in  answer  to  the  Censure  published  by  the 
Theologians  at  Paris :  the  author  admits  that  the  scholar 
has  much  reason  to  be  angry  with  Beda,  but  blames 
him,  nevertheless,  for  subscribing  to  Luther’s  impious 
dogma.  When,  in  1532,  Erasmus  revised  his  Declama - 

1  This  published  in  Olah  Miklos  Levelezese;  kozli  Ipolyi  Arnold.  Monu - 
menta  Hungarice  historic  a:  diplomataria,  xxv,  1875.  Olaus  to  Erasmus,  Augs¬ 
burg,  July  1,  1530,  p.  69;  Erasmus  to  Olaus,  July  7,  p.  70;  Erasmus  to  Queen 
Mary,  December  12,  1531,  p.  175;  Mary  to  Erasmus,  June  13,  1533,  p.  378; 
Erasmus  to  Olaus,  February  28,  1532,  p.  201;  Olaus  to  Erasmus,  July  26,  1532, 
p.  226,  and  other  letters. 

2  Letter  of  Antony  Fugger  to  Erasmus,  April  7,  1530,  thanking  him  for  a 
dedication  of  Xenophon.  Zeitsch.  d.  hist.  Vereins  f.  Schwaben  und  Neuberg,  xxi, 
1894,  p.  56. 

3  C.  P.  Hoynck  van  Papendrecht:  Analecta  Belgica,  6  parts,  1743.  Letters 
vol.  ii,  part  i,  pp.  9  ff.,  dated  1529-35.  Life  of  Van  Zuichem  (1507-77),  in  vol.  i. 
In  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence,  there  is  a  portrait  called  “Zwingli,”  now  known 
to  be  of  Van  Zuichem  by  the  artist  Nicholas  of  Neuchatel.  Zwingliana ,  1918, 

p.  347- 

4  Ambrosii  Pelargi  et  Erasmi  Roterdami  Bellaria  Epistolarum,  1539.  A 
copy  of  this  excessively  rare  book  (not  in  the  British  Museum)  is  at  the  Bod¬ 
leian,  Oxford.  I  have  not  seen  it  myself,  but  my  friend,  Prof.  Carrington 
Lancaster,  kindly  made  an  abstract  of  it  for  me,  copying  one  letter  entire  and 
selections  from  others.  On  Pelargus  see  further:  N.  Paulus:  Die  Deutschen 
Dominikaner  im  Kampfe  gegen  Luther ,  pp.  204-208.  The  letters  are  dated 
1529-34. 


VIGLIUS  VAN  ZUICHEM 

Portrait  by  Nicholas  Neuchatel.  Original  at  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence, 

incorrectly  called  “Zwingli” 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


411 

lions  for  a  new  edition  he  wrote  the  fact  to  Pelargus 
and  added: 

Wherefore  I  ask  you  to  send  me  your  notes  that  I  may  see  if  they 
have  anything  useful  to  me.  For  it  is  not  my  intention  to  mix 
anything  Lutheran  in  my  writings.  If  you  please  to  send  them,  do 
not  bother  to  copy  them,  for  I  have  secretaries  who  can  read  anything. 
However,  if  you  should  wish  to  copy  them,  I  should  be  grateful. 
But  do  not  undertake  the  labor  until  I  have  had  a  sample  of  your 
work  and  we  have  talked  it  over  together. 

The  correspondence  shows  the  good  humor  with 
which  the  greater  man  allowed  the  lesser  to  criticize  his 
Folly  and  Colloquies ;  the  break  came  when  the  lesser 
writer  took  umbrage  at  a  published  reference  to  himself 
and  Mayr  as  having  part  in  the  tumults  at  Basle. 

A  philosopher  and  scientist  famous  in  his  own  day 
and  esteemed  even  now  was  Henry  Cornelius  Agrippa  of 
Nettesheim,  a  man  who  stood  outside  of  the  two  hostile 
camps  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  crowning  labor  of 
this  versatile  man  was  a  defense  of  philosophic  doubt, 
or  rather  an  attack  on  the  pretensions  of  learned  men, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  plea  for  a  simple  biblical 
Christianity,  entitled:  An  Oration  on  the  Uncertainty 
and  Vanity  of  Science  and  of  Art  and  on  the  Excellence 
of  God’s  Word.  This  he  sent  for  an  opinion  to  Erasmus, 
who  professed  to  like  it.1 

With  a  brilliant  circle  of  humanists  in  Southern 
France  Erasmus  was  brought  into  contact  by  his  publi¬ 
cation  of  Josephus.  Having  heard  of  an  important 
manuscript  of  this  author  in  possession  of  George 
d’Armagnac,  Bishop  of  Rodez  and  an  officer  of  the 
King  of  Navarre,  the  great  scholar  wrote  him  asking  to 
borrow  it,  in  a  letter  dated  November  19,  1531. 2  It 
happened,  however,  that  this  codex  had  passed  into  the 

1  On  Agrippa  see  lives  by  H.  Morley,  1856,  and  Prost,  1881.  Some  letters  to 
Erasmus  and  Agrippa,  not  found  elsewhere,  are  in  H.  C.  Agrippa  Opera , 
Lugduni,  s.a.,  Lib.  vi,  epp.  31,  36;  lib.  vii,  epp.  6,  9,  17,  18,  19,  38,  40, 

I53I"33- 

2  Lond.  xxv,  3;  LB.  ep.  1203  with  the  mistaken  superscription  “Episcopo 
Rivensi”  (Bishop  of  Rieux)  instead  of  “Episcopo  Ruthenensi”  (Bishop  of 
Rodez). 


412 


ERASMUS 


possession  of  Jean  de  Pins,  Bishop  of  Rieux,  to  whom 
d’Armagnac  forwarded  Erasmus’s  request,  and  wrote 
the  latter  of  the  fact.  On  January  28,  1532,  De  Pins 
replied  to  d’Armagnac  that  he  would  send  the  manu¬ 
script  to  the  humanist  had  he  not  already  promised 
to  give  it  for  printing  to  the  publisher  of  Lyons,  Sebastian 
Gryphius.1 

But  Erasmus  was  not  thus  to  be  foiled.  He  had 
already  known  De  Pins  at  Bologna,  some  twenty-five 
years  before,  and  accordingly  on  March  20,  1532,  wrote 
him  the  letter2  of  which  part  is  here  translated: 

To  me,  certainly,  that  was  no  unlucky  mistake  which  has  given 
occasion  to  revive  the  memory  of  our  pleasant  intercourse  and 
literary  studies  at  Bologna.  I  thought  that  there  was  a  Greek 
Josephus  in  possession  of  the  Very  Reverend  Bishop  of  Rodez,  but 
he  has  written  that  it  is  now  in  your  possession,  having  returned 
to  you  by  right  of  ownership.  Your  kindness,  which  I  formerly 
learned  to  know  and  to  try  at  close  quarters,  makes  me  hope  that 
you  will  lend  that  volume  for  some  months  to  Jerome  Froben,  who 
has  decided  to  publish,  with  the  aid  of  several  learned  men,  that 
historian,  who,  in  spite  of  his  fame,  has  been  wretchedly  corrupted 
by  the  ignorance  of  copyists  and  of  translators.  ...  I  should 
like  to  know  what  the  oracle  says  about  our  friend  Bombasius,  for  I 
have  been  able  to  hear  nothing  of  him  for  many  years. 

This  innocent  epistle  aroused  the  suspicions  of  the 
vigilant  inquisitors  of  Southern  France.  Dolet  has  told 
how  De  Pins  was  called  before  the  town  council  of 
Toulouse  and  forced  to  hear  the  letter  read  and  trans¬ 
lated  to  them.3  He  himself  describes  the  same 
experience  in  a  letter  written  in  reply  to  the  last.4 

Sweetest  Erasmus:  When  your  delightful  and  pleasant  letter 
was  brought  to  me,  you  would  hardly  believe  the  tumult  that  it 
created  by  falling  into  the  hands  of  certain  men  who  appear  to  look 
at  you  askance  and  to  say  evil  about  you.  They  tried  secretly  to 

1  This  letter  first  published  by  L.  Thuasne  in  Revue  des  Bibliotheques,  xv, 
1905,  pp.  203-208.  It  is  dated  “Toulouse.”  On  Gryphius  see  article  by  R.  C. 
Christie,  Historical  Essays  by  Members  of  Ozvens  College ,  Manchester,  1902, 
pp.  307-23. 

2  Nimes  MS.,  no.  215,  fol.  168  verso.  See  text  in  Appendix  II,  p.  448. 

s  Quoted  by  Thuasne,  loc.  cit.,  and  see  R.  C.  Christie:  Dolet,2  1899,  66  if. 

4  Nimes  MS.,  215,  fol.  165  verso.  See  text  in  Appendix  II,  pp.  448  f. 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


4i3 


smell  out  some  way  in  which  I  could  be  either  threatened  or  drawn 
out.  But  I  think  their  only  reason  was  that  they  have  been  too 
vehemently  affected  by  the  reproach  of  certain  persons1  whom  you 
attack  in  your  books,  and  wound  and  harass  too  much,  as  they  have 
complained  both  to  me  and  to  others.  When  these  men  hoped  to 
find  something  important  in  your  letter,  as  though  Erasmus  and 
De  Pins  were  conspirators  against  the  realm,  they  first  made  a  great 
fuss  and  then  while  I,  by  chance,  was  absent  from  the  city  on  a  short 
vacation,  they  threw  into  prison  the  poor  secretaries  who  had  brought 
the  letter  from  Paris,  on  the  ground  that  these  men  sought  to  evade 
them  and  did  not  seem  willing  to  deliver  the  letter  at  once  into  their 
hands.  When  they,  smitten  with  madness  though  they  were,  had 
returned  to  good  sense  and  moderation,  they  insisted  on  unsealing 
the  letter  in  my  presence  and  with  my  consent.  When  I  readily 
consented  and  when  they  found  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  letter 
except  something  about  a  certain  Joseph,  then  you  may  believe  that 
their  faces  fell  and  that  they  acted  like  men  taken  unawares.  .  .  . 

De  Pins  then  goes  on  to  tell  how  he  had  once  procured 
the  manuscript  of  Josephus  from  the  heritage  of  Filelfo 
and  Leonardo  Giustiniani;  how  he  had  lent  it  to  Peter 
Gylli,  a  scholar  in  the  service  of  George  d’Armagnac, 
how  he  had  now  promised  to  send  it  to  Sebastian 
Gryphius  at  Lyons  to  be  printed.  He  added  that  he 
heard  that  Bombasius  had  perished  in  the  sack  of  Rome. 

But  in  the  meantime  the  manuscript  had  been  returned 
by  Gylli  to  George  d’Armagnac,  and  by  him  forwarded 
to  an  obscure  proof-reader  of  Sebastian  Gryphius,  one 
Francois  Rabelais  by  name,  with  instructions  to  send  it 
on  to  Erasmus  when  he  got  a  reliable  messenger.  The 
opportunity  came  when  Hilaire  Bertulph,  one  of  the 
humanisms  secretaries  and  a  man  already  known  to  the 
French  court,  visited  Lyons.2  Rabelais,  who  had  been 
studying  Erasmus  with  admiration,  seized  this  occasion 
to  write  to  him,  partly  to  express  his  obligations,  partly 
to  disabuse  the  humanist  of  the  idea  that  the  book 
written  by  J.  C.  Scaliger  was  composed  by  Aleander. 
A  part  of  his  letter  is  here  translated:3 


1 1.e.y  the  humanists  attacked  in  the  Ciceronianus. 

2  A.  Roersch:  L’  Huvianisme  Beige ,  1910,  pp.  75  ff. 

*  Forstemann-Giinther,  ep.  182,  dated  November  30,  1532. 


414 


ERASMUS 


George  d’Armagnac,  the  famous  Bishop  of  Rodez,  recently  sent 
me  Flavius  Josephus’s  Jewish  History  of  the  Sack 1  and  asked  me,  for 
the  sake  of  our  old  friendship,  that,  when  I  found  a  reliable  man 
setting  out  I  should  send  it  to  you  at  the  first  opportunity.  I  gladly 
seized  that  handle  and  occasion,  kind  father,  of  showing  by  a  pleasing 
service  with  what  devotion  and  piety  I  love  you.  I  call  you  father; 
for,  as  we  daily  see  that  pregnant  women  nourish  offspring  which  they 
have  never  seen  and  protect  them  from  the  harsh  outer  air,  the  same 
has  happened  to  you  who  have  educated  me  who  am  unknown  to  you 
and  of  simple  estate.  Thus  have  you  hitherto  nourished  me  with  the 
most  chaste  breasts  of  your  divine  learning,  so  that,  did  I  not  ascribe 
to  you  alone  my  whole  worth  and  being,  I  should  be  the  most 
ungrateful  of  all  men  who  are  now  alive  or  ever  will  be.  Hail  again 
and  again,  most  beloved  father,  father  and  glory  of  your  country, 
champion  and  defender  of  letters  and  unconquered  fighter  for  the  truth. 

This  more  than  enthusiastic  letter  would  lead  one  to 
expect  that  Rabelais  was  a  careful  student  of  Erasmus’s 
works,  and  a  thorough  investigation  has  proved  that 
the  Gargantua  and  Pantagruel  do  in  fact  borrow  im¬ 
mensely  from  the  Folly  and  the  Colloquies ,  as  well  as 
from  other  works.1 2  To  Erasmus,  however,  the  young 
physician  of  Lyons  was  quite  unknown,  and  though  he 
certainly  received  the  letter  it  is  probable  he  did  not 
answer  it. 

With  Rabelais’s  letter  Erasmus  therefore  received  the 
Josephus,  which  he  acknowledged  in  a  note  of  January 
3°,  1 533, 3  and  which  he  forthwith  prepared  for  the 
press.4  When  De  Pins  requested  the  return  of  the 
manuscript,5  Erasmus  penned  the  following  interesting 
epistle,  dated  November  13,  1534.6 

Excellent  Bishop:  For  your  constant  benevolence  toward  me  I 
am,  as  I  ought  to  be,  most  grateful.  I  am  forced  to  endure  various 
inconveniences.  Luther  has  written  against  me  a  simply  furious 
letter,  so  wickedly  mendacious  that  it  may  displease  even  the  most 

1  I.e.y  of  Jerusalem.  The  words  in  italics  are  in  Greek  in  the  original. 

2Thuasne:  Etudes  sur  Rabelais.  1904.  Chap.  ii.  “Rabelais  et  Lrasme.” 

3  Nimes  MS.,  215,  fol.  170.  See  Appendix  II,  p.  450. 

4  Antiquitatum  Judaicarum  libri  xx.  Basle,  1534. 

6  Nimes  MS.,  215,  fol.  167.  See  Appendix  II,  p.  451. 

6  Nimes  MS.,  215,  fol.  169.  See  Appendix  II,  p.  451. 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


4i5 


ardent  Lutherans.  Nicholas  Herbom,  the  Franciscan  Commissary 
General  this  side  of  the  Alps,  has  published  some  Lenten  sermons 
in  which  he  spatters  me  with  bitter  invective.  There  are  some  men 
who  read  libels  against  me  privately  among  their  fellows,  among 
whom  was  Busch,  recently  deceased.  Nor  does  the  least  part  of  my 
troubles  come  from  my  servants.  I  recently  nursed  a  viper  in  my 
bosom,  thinking  I  had  a  faithful  servant,  but  he  would  have  killed 
me  could  he  have  done  so  with  impunity.  In  addition  to  this,  old 
age  weighs  on  me  more  and  more,  and  gout  tortures  me. 

Another  short  letter  of  May  19,  1535,  gave  news  of 
Bombasius’s  death.1  A  greeting  from  De  Pins,2  on  June 
24,  1536,  closed  the  record  of  friendship  of  the  two  old 
men,  both  of  whom  wTere  near  death. 

While  the  adoration  of  so  many  brilliant  men  must 
have  given  him  much  happiness,  the  last  years  of 
Erasmus  were  darkened  by  the  hideous  tragedy  that  fell 
upon  his  English  friends  under  the  tyranny  of  Henry 
VIII.  The  dramatic  disgrace  of  Wolsey  cast,  in  October, 
1529,  from  the  height  of  power  to  the  depth  of  disfavor, 
made  an  immense  sensation  throughout  Europe.  “Oh 
fickle  tide  of  human  fortune!”  exclaimed  the  humanist 
when  he  first  heard  of  it.3 

When  the  great  seal  was  given  to  Sir  Thomas  More 
he  at  once  wrote  his  old  friend :  “  Long  having  meditated 
leisure,  lo  I  am  unexpectedly  thrown  into  the  stream  ol 
affairs.  .  .  .  My  friends  here  exult  vehemently  and 
congratulate  me  .  .  .  you  perhaps  will  pity  my  fortune.”4 
Far  from  reassured  by  the  news,  Erasmus  foreboded 
further  trouble  and  a  great  slaughter,  unless  some 
genuine  hero  should  arise  to  prevent  it.5 

1  Nimes  MS.,  215,  fob  169.  Appendix  II,  p.  451  f. 

2  Beroald  to  Erasmus,  Enthoven,  no.  141. 

3  “0  rerum  humanarum  Euripum”;  cf.  Adagia ,  chil.  i,  cent,  ix,  prov.  lxii, 
LB.  ii,  357.  To  Francis,  Treasurer  of  Besan^on,  December  10,  1529,  Lond. 
xxvi,  23;  LB.  ep.  1080.  Cf.  Luther’s  comments  on  the  same  matter,  Enders, 
vii,  228. 

*  October  28,  1529,  “ex  rusculo  nostro”  (Chelsea),  Forstemann-Giinther, 
ep.  1 13. 

5  Erasmus  to  Amerbach,  January  14  (1530),  Epistola  ad  Amerbachium ,  no. 
11.  The  year-date  is  given  by  the  reference  to  Campeggio’s  leaving  England, 
which  happened  in  October,  1529. 


ERASMUS 


416 

All  too  soon  came  confirmation  of  the  gloomy  presenti¬ 
ment.  Unable  to  approve  Henry’s  marriage  with  Anne 
Boleyn,  or  to  allow  his  title  as  Supreme  Head  of  the 
Church,  More  resigned  the  great  seal  on  May  15,  1532, 
writing  to  Erasmus  that  this  step  had  not  been  forced 
upon  him  by  the  king,1  and  at  the  same  time  expressing 
his  hatred  of  the  sectaries,  particularly  of  Tyndale  and 
of  Melanchthon.  The  letter  was  so  long  delayed  in 
Saxony  that  everyone  knew  of  the  event  before  the  news 
reached  Erasmus.  Thinking  to  help  his  friend,  perhaps, 
the  humanist  wrote,  in  the  form  of  an  open  letter2  to 
Faber,  Bishop  of  Vienna,  a  charming  description  and 
eulogy  of  More’s  household,  adding  his  assurance  of  the 
ex-Chancellor’s  safety:  “For  I  know  the  nature  of  that 
most  humane  prince,  and  the  constancy  with  which  he 
cherishes  the  friends  he  has  once  embraced,  and  how  he 
hardly  ever  removes  any  of  them  from  his  favor,  even 
though  he  surprises  them  in  some  human  error.  ...  I 
doubt  not  that  for  good  reasons  More  begged  the  king 
to  dismiss  him.” 

Vain  sop  of  flattery  tossed  to  a  savage  beast!  Now 
began  in  earnest  the  slaughter  of  the  noblest  in  the 
kingdom.  On  May  4,  1535,  three  Carthusian  priors,  the 
Vicar  of  Isleworth,  and  Dr.  Richard  Reynolds  of  the 
Bridgettine  monastery  of  Sion  were  sent  to  the  block 
on  the  charge  of  treason.  A  still  greater  shock  to  the 
civilized  world  came  when  the  two  ornaments  of  England, 
John  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  and  Sir  Thomas  More, 
were  thrown  into  the  Tower  and  then  executed,  the  one 
on  June  22d,  the  other  on  July  6th.  Of  all  this  Erasmus 
wrote  on  August  12th:3 


1  More  to  Erasmus,  June  14,  1532,  Lond.  xxvii,  9;  LB.  ep.  1223.  Another 
letter  without  date,  Lond.  xxvii,  io.  Dr.  F.  M.  Rogers:  “A  Calendar  of  the 
Correspondence  of  Sir  T.  More,”  English  Historical  Review ,  xxxvii,  1922, 
546  if,  dates  this  second  letter  June,  1533. 

2  No  date,  but  written  toward  the  end  of  1532  and  first  published  in  the 
De  prczparatione  ad  Mortem ,  sent  to  England,  circa  January,  1534.  Lond. 
xxvii,  8;  LB.  ep.  426. 

3  To  Bartholomew  Latomus,  Basle,  August  12,  1535.  LB.  ep.  1286. 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


4i7 


Hither  many  noble  Frenchmen  have  fled,  fearing  the  winter 
storm,  but  they  are  now  called  back.  “The  lion  will  roar,”  says  the 
prophet,  “and  who  will  not  be  afraid?”  A  similar  terror,  from  a 
different  cause,  has  settled  on  the  souls  of  the  English.  Capital 
punishment  was  exacted  of  certain  monks,  among  whom  was  a 
Bridgettine,  first  dragged  along  the  ground,  then  hung,  and  afterward 
quartered.  A  persistent  and  probable  rumor  says  that  when  the 
king  knew  that  the  Bishop  of  Rochester  had  been  elected  into  the 
college  of  cardinals,  he  had  him  quickly  led  forth  and  beheaded. 
For  some  time  Thomas  More  has  been  in  prison,  having  given  up  his 
offices.  This  is  too  true.  It  is  also  said  that  he  has  been  executed, 
but  of  this  I  have  as  yet  had  no  certain  tidings.  Would  that  he  had 
never  mixed  in  this  perilous  business,  but  had  left  theology  to 
theologians! 

Within  two  weeks  Erasmus  knew  the  worst1  and  then 
wrote:  “In  More  I  seem  to  have  died,  so  much  did  we 
have  one  soul,  as  Pythagoras  said.  But  such  are  the 
surges  of  human  fate.”2  Shortly  after  this  there  was 
published  an  open  letter  on  the  death  of  Fisher  and  of 
More,  purporting  to  be  from  William  Courinus  Nucerinus 
to  Philip  Montanus;  it  was  commonly  attributed  to 
Erasmus,  but  was  doubtless  written,  under  his  direction 
and  inspiration,  by  his  famulus ,  Gilbert  Cousin.3  After 
an  account  of  the  trial  and  execution  taken  from  a  news¬ 
letter  from  Paris4  with  the  report  of  an  eyewitness,  the 
heroism  and  nobility  of  the  suffering  pair  are  graphically 
described.  The  writer  would  have  liked  to  persuade  the 
king  to  be  less  severe  toward  these  lights  of  Britain,  at 
the  same  time  that  he  would  have  advised  the  men  not 
openly  to  defy  the  storm,  for  time  heals  many  things 

1  He  was  informed  by  Chapuys,  the  imperial  ambassador  in  England;  see 
his  letter  to  L.  Ber,  September  12,  1535,  published  in  Zentralblatt  fur  Biblio- 
thekswesen ,  38  (1921),  p.  100  f. 

2  Erasmus  to  Tomitz,  August  31,  1535,  Lond.  xxvii,  25;  LB.  ep.  1287. 

3  It  is  dated  July  23,  1535,  and  is  reprinted  LB.  App.  ep.  378.  It  was  printed 
at  Basle,  on  which  and  on  the  attribution  of  the  authorship  to  Erasmus  see 
Oporin  to  Blaurer,  October  13,  1535,  Brief  weeks  el  der  Blaurer  hg.  von  T. 
Schiess,  i,  749,  753;  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII,  x,  p.  188,  note.  Philip 
Montanus  was  a  real  man  known  to  Erasmus;  cf.  LB.  epp.  1081  and  1264. 
The  author  is  given  as  Gulielmus  Courinus  Nucerinus,  a  transparent  pseu¬ 
donym  for  Gilbertus  Cousinus  Nozerenus. 

4  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII ,  viii,  no.  996. 


ERASMUS 


418 

which  force  cannot  mend.  Those  who  serve  kings  ought 
to  dissemble  in  some  matters,  so  as  to  get  at  least  part 
of  their  objects.  More  is  described  as  a  man  of  un¬ 
paralleled  urbanity  and  kindness,  who  befriended  all  the 
learned,  not  only  those  of  his  own  nation,  but  Irishmen, 
Frenchmen,  Germans,  and  Hindus.  The  writer  of  the 
letter,  though  he  says  he  has  never  seen  More,  has  shed 
many  tears  for  him.  What  then  will  be  the  feelings  of 
Erasmus,  who  loved  More  as  his  own  soul? 

Shortly  after  Erasmus’s  death  there  appeared  a  poem 
on  the  death  of  Fisher  and  More,  attributed  to  him, 
though  it  never  found  its  way  into  his  collected  works.1 
If  really  by  him,  and  we  have  no  special  reason  to  doubt 
its  authenticity,2  it  gives  the  strongest  representation 
we  have  of  Erasmus’s  real  feelings.  Henry  is  arraigned 
severely  for  lust  and  tyranny  and  for  usurping  the  papal 
prerogative: 

Eijceret  Moecham,  Thalamique  in  iura  vocaret 
Legitimam  uxorem  solitoque  ornaret  honore. 

Ispe  sibi  ius  pontificis  nomenque  sacratum 
Quae  late  sua  regna  patent  usurpat.  .  .  . 

In  many  of  his  letters,  too,  Erasmus  speaks  with  pathos 
of  his  loss.  He  had  intended  to  dedicate  his  Method  of 
Preaching  to  Fisher,  but  a  storm  has  bereft  him  of  that 
godly  prelate,  together  with  More  and  Warham,  than 
whom  England  never  had  nor  ever  would  have  anything 
greater.3  Some,  however,  were  naturally  surprised  that 


1  Incomparabilis  .  .  .  D.  Erasmi  ...  in  sanctissimorum  martirum  Rofensis 
Episcopi  ac  Th.  Mori.  .  .  .  Heroicum  Carmen.  Mense  Septembre.  M'DXXXVI. 
[Colophon]  Hagenau.  Bound  with  other  matter,  namely:  Antiqua  Epistola 
Nicolai  Papa  I.  (Dedication  dated  Meissen,  February  27,  1536,  by  editor.) 
And  Defensio  Clarissimorum  Virorum  J.  Fyscheri  Episcopi  Rofensis  et  Thomae 
Mori  Baronis.  .  .  .  adv.  R.  Sampsonem.  Per  J.  Cochlaeum.  (Strong  pam¬ 
phlet  against  the  king.)  Cochlaeus  corroborates  the  authenticity  of  Erasmus’s 
poem  in  his  Commentaria  de  actis  et  scriptis  M.  Luiheri ,  first  published  1549. 
I  quote  from  the  edition  of  1568  (Harvard),  p.  303. 

1  Jortin:  Erasmus ,  ii,  289,  doubts  it  because  he  thinks  Erasmus  would  not 
have  had  spirit  enough  to  write  it. 

*  To  Christopher  von  Stadion,  August  6,  1535;  Lond.  xxix,  42. 


LAST  YEARS  AT  FREIBURG 


419 


he  published  nothing  openly  on  their  deaths.1  When, 
shortly  before  his  death,  he  heard  of  the  reaction  in 
England  and  of  the  execution  of  Anne  Boleyn,  who  had 
been  claimed  by  the  Protestant  party,  Erasmus  wrote 
to  his  informant:  “You  tell  prodigies  of  England. 
Would  that  these  things  had  been  found  out  before  those 
good  men  had  been  put  to  death!”2 

Sick  at  heart  and  “almost  killed  with  cares,’  ’  Erasmus 
now  prepared  to  leave  Freiburg.  A  trying  personal 
experience,  the  theft  of  many  of  his  valuables,  united 
with  the  clamor  of  the  monks  and  theologians  to  drive 
him  from  that  town,3  to  which  he  never  wanted  to  return 
again.4  The  house  which  he  had  bought  for  624  gold 
florins,5  and  on  which  he  had  spent  much  for  repairs,  for 
floors,  and  for  glass  windows,  he  sold,  on  October  30, 
1 53 5,  to  one  Peter  Ryd. 

When  he  returned  to  Basle  in  the  summer  of  1535  he 
was  warmly  greeted  by  the  university  with  a  gift  of 
hippocras,  malvoisie,  and  other  spiced  wines,  and  saluted 
by  a  delegation  of  professors.  The  only  untoward 
incident  was  due  to  the  heartiness  of  the  handshake  he 
received  from  Oporinus,  which  was  so  cordial  that  it 
made  him  cry  out  with  pain.6  After  just  a  year  in  his 
old  home,  while  superintending  some  printing,  he  met 
his  death  from  an  attack  of  dysentery.  On  June  6,  1536,7 
he  knew  himself  to  be  dying,  though  the  end  did  not 
come  until  the  night  of  July  Iith-I2th.  His  last  words 


1  Damian  a  Goes  to  Erasmus,  Padua,  January  26,  1536;  LB.  App.  ep.  331. 

2  Erasmus  to  Schetz,  Basle,  June  1,  1536;  extract  published  by  A.  Roersch: 
“Quarante-six  lettres  inedites  d’Erasme,”  in  Melanges  ojferts  a  M.  E.  Picot, 
tome  I,  1913,  p.  10. 

8  To  John  Choler,  Pentas  epistolarum ,  [pub.  by  Vesenmeyer],  1798,  p.  4, 
dated  September  9,  1533. 

4  Erasmus  to  L.  Ber,  Basle,  September  12,  1535,  pub.  in  Zentralblatt  fur 
Bibliothekswesen ,  Band  38,  1921,  pp.  100  f. 

5  Say  $1,400,  or  £280. 

8  T.  Burckhardt-Biedermann:  “Die  Erneuerung  der  Universitat  zu  Basel 
1529-39,”  Beitrdge  zur  vaterlandische  Geschichte,  N.  F.,  iv,  1896,  p.  428. 

7  Letter  to  Tiedemann  Giese,  in  Bibliotheca  JVarmiensis  oder  Liter atur ge¬ 
schichte  des  Bisthums  Ermland ,  1872,  p.  103,  note  38. 


420 


ERASMUS 


were:  “0  Mother  of  God,  remember  me!”1  “Jesus 
Christ,  Son  of  God,  have  mercy  upon  me!  I  will  sing 
the  mercy  and  judgment  of  the  Lord!”  These  were 
repeated  over  and  over  again  until  with  his  last  breath 
the  dying  man  said  in  the  Low  German  of  his  childhood, 
“Lieber  Gott”  (“Dear  God”),  and  expired.2  A  splendid 
funeral  was  accorded  him  by  the  magistrates  and  men 
of  note  at  Basle.  He  was  laid  to  rest  in  the  cathedral,3 
and  a  stone  statue  was  placed  in  a  public  square  to 
commemorate  him.4 

1  This  according  to  the  testimony  of  his  Belgian  secretary,  Lambert  Coomans. 
See  Bulletin  de  l’ Academie  Royale  de  Belgique ,  tome  9,  1842;  F.  Neve:  La 
Renaissance  des  Lettres  et  VEssor  de  l' Erudition  en  Belgique,  1890,  p.  28. 

2  On  Erasmus’s  removal  to  Basle,  to  Tomitz,  August  31,  1525;  Lond.  xxvii, 
25;  LB.  ep.  1287.  On  his  death:  Stromer  to  Spalatin  (July  15?),  1536, 
Horawitz:  Erasmiana,  ii,  no.  11,  p.  608.  Amerbach  to  Spalatin,  July  11, 
1536,  K.  &  W.  Krafft:  Brief e  und  Dokumente  aus  der  Zeit  der  Reformation,  p.  75. 
Boniface  Amerbach  to  Alciat,  April  4,  1537;  Burckhardt-Biedermann:  Bon. 
Amerbach  und  die  Reformation,  p.  310;  Henvagen  to  Rhenanus,  July  17,  1536, 
Briefzvechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus,  hg.  von  Horawitz  und  Hartfelder,  no.  296; 
Rhenanus  to  Hermann  of  Wied,  August  15,  1536,  Allen,  i,  pp.  53  f.  Stromer 
to  Oswald  Lasan,  1536,  in  Z,eitschrift  fur  kirchliche  Wissenschaft  und  kirch- 
liches  Leben,  v,  10 3  (1885),  and  the  same  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchengeschichte , 
xx vi,  138  (1905). 

3  Fynes  Moryson:  Itinerary,  1907,  i.  59  f. 

4  Bartholomew  Sastrow  saw  the  tomb  here  in  1549.  Social  Germany  in 
Luther  s  Time,  translated  by  Vandam,  1902,  p.  264. 


CHAPTER  XV 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS  AND  HIS  PLACE 

IN  HISTORY 


AS  the  living  man  is  known  by  the  company  he  keeps, 
so  the  mind  of  the  great  dead  can  be  surely  placed 
by  observing  the  character  of  those  among  posterity  who 
praise  and  follow  and  of  those  who  depreciate  and  detest 
him.  It  is  fitting  and  natural  that,  whereas  the  hunt  of 
obloquy  and  misunderstanding  which  pursued  Erasmus 
during  his  last  years  continued  for  generations  after  his 
death  among  the  partisans  of  either  side,  on  the  other 
hand  his  work  and  character  have  received  the  most 
cordial  recognition  from  liberal-minded  and  rational 
Protestants,  and  from  not  a  few  of  the  less  militant  free¬ 
thinkers.  His  truest  disciples  have  been  found  neither 
among  those  who  sacrificed  reason  at  the  altar  of  faith, 
nor  among  those  who  cast  off  piety  together  with  super¬ 
stition  and  dogma,  but  among  the  seekers  for  reason  in 
religion  and  for  a  culture  emancipated  from  the  bondage 
of  the  past  but  not  ungrateful  to  the  precious  heritage 
of  the  ages. 

After  his  works  had  been  burned  and  banned  by  vari¬ 
ous  Catholic  countries,1  after  he  had  been  branded  at  the 
Council  of  Trent  as  a  Pelagian  and  an  impious  heretic,2 
his  writings  were  officially  prohibited  by  the  Church,  now 

1  Colloquies  were  prohibited  in  Franche-Comte  on  July  15,  1535;  the  Moria, 
the  Paraphrases  and  the  De  Conscribendis  Epistolis  on  March  8,  1537;  see 
L.  Febvre:  Notes  et  Documents  sur  V Inquisition  en  Franche-Comte,  1912,  pp. 
178,  183.  His  works  would  have  been  prohibited  in  Belgium  in  1540  but  for 
Cardinal  Granvella,  Enders  xiii,  222;  they  were  burned  at  Milan  January 
29,  1543 >  Briefzvechsel  des  Beatus  Rhenanus,  p.  488. 

2  P.  Sarpi:  Histoire  du  Concile  de  Trent,  traduite  en  Fran^ais  par  Amelot 
de  la  Houssaie,  1699,  pp.  159,  224. 


421 


422 


ERASMUS 


in  part,  now  altogether.  The  Spanish  Inquisition  first 
forbade  the  reading  of  the  Folly,  of  the  Epistles ,  of  the 
Paraphrases  of  the  Gospels ,  and  of  the  Refutations  of 
Luther ,  and  then  proceeded,  in  the  words  of  Milton,  “to 
rake  through  his  entrails  with  a  violation  worse  than  the 
tomb,”  publishing,  in  the  Expurgatorial  Index  of  1584, 
a  list  of  passages  to  be  deleted  from  his  works  on  ac¬ 
count  of  error,  a  list  so  long  that  it  filled  fifty-five 
quarto  pages.  But  even  this  was  found  insufficient;  the 
enumeration  of  his  errors  in  the  Expurgatorial  Index  of 
1640  swelled  to  fifty-nine  double-columned  folio  pages.1 
Rome  soon  followed  the  lead  of  Spain.  In  1559  Paul  IV 
not  only  put  Erasmus  in  the  first  class  of  forbidden 
authors,  made  up  of  those  all  of  whose  works  were  con¬ 
demned,  but  added  after  his  name:  “All  his  commen¬ 
taries,  notes,  criticisms,  colloquies,  epistles,  translations, 
books,  and  writings,  even  if  they  contain  absolutely 
nothing  against  religion  or  about  religion.”  A  Commis¬ 
sion  of  the  Council  of  Trent  relaxed  this  censure  slightly 
by  prohibiting  the  Colloquies ,  the  Folly ,  the  Tongue ,  the 
Institution  of  Christian  Marriage ,  the  Italian  translation 
of  the  Paraphrase  to  Matthew ,  and  all  other  works  on 
religion  until  expurgated  by  the  Sorbonne.  As  this  in¬ 
cluded  the  Adages ,  there  was  little  left,  and  in  fact  he 
was  treated  practically  as  an  author  of  the  first  class.2 
His  friends,  Rhenanus,  Wicel,  and  Zasius,  were  also  put 
on  the  Index,  apparently  more  because  of  their  connec¬ 
tion  with  him  than  for  any  other  reason. 

While  some  Catholic  doctors,  like  Raynaldus,  labored 
to  justify  the  censure  of  the  Church  by  proving  Erasmus 
an  atheist,  others  felt  his  charm  and  tried  to  save  what 
fragments  they  could  from  the  wreck  of  his  anathema¬ 
tized  remains.  The  Jesuits  particularly  learned  the  value 
of  his  educational  treatises;  one  of  the  greatest  of  them, 
Peter  Canisius,  avowing  that  the  man  had  deserved  well 

1  H.  C.  Lea:  Chapters  from  the  Religious  History  of  Spain,  1890,  p.  42. 

2  F.  H.  Reusch:  Der  Index  der  Verhotenen  Bucher,  1883,  i,  pp.  347’3^7J 
H.  C.  Lea,  op.  cit.  pp.  34  ff. 


ERASMUS 

From  a  painting  by  Holbein.  Original  at  the  Louvre 


V 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


423 

of  letters  and  only  by  meddling  with  theology,  to  which 
he  had  no  call,  had  ruined  his  own  reputation.1 

Thus  began  to  crystallize  the  now  common  Catholic 
judgment  that  Erasmus  was  a  man  of  brilliant  parts  but 
of  weak  character.  When  Alexander  Pope  had  told  of 
the  arts  lost  during  the  Middle  Ages,  he  added;2 

At  length  Erasmus,  that  great  injured  name, 

(The  glory  of  the  priesthood  and  the  shame!) 

Stemmed  the  wild  torrent  of  a  barb’rous  age, 

And  drove  those  holy  Vandals  off  the  stage. 

A  century  later  the  great  French  Catholic  orator  and 
ecclesiastic,  Lacordaire,  who  spoke  with  respect  of 
“Luther’s  rich  and  puissant  nature,”  and  who  admired 
Erasmus  as  the  “first  academician  of  the  world”  and 
the  modeller  of  exquisitely  elastic  prose,  sneered  at  him 
because,  when  the  thunder  growled  and  he  might  have 
given  one  party  or  the  other  the  support  of  his  blood, 
“this  good  fellow  had  the  courage  to — remain  academi¬ 
cian,  and  thus  expired  at  Rotterdam  (!)  just  as  he  had 
finished  writing  a  phrase  still  elegant  but  now  despised.”3 

Useless  to  quote  all  the  verdicts  of  eminent  Catholics. 
They  are  well  summed  up  in  the  words  of  that  distin¬ 
guished  scholar,  Ludwig  von  Pastor:4 

A  great  scholar  but  a  weak  character, a  man  of  brilliant  attainments, 
by  the  many-sided  versatility  of  his  mind,  Erasmus  exercised  by  his 
numerous  writings  prodigious  influence  on  his  time.  In  spite  of  all 
the  services  he  rendered  to  classical  study,  it  must  be  admitted  that, 
though  he  never  separated  himself  openly  from  the  Church,  Erasmus 
did  much  by  his  attacks,  not  only  on  degenerate  scholasticism,  but 
on  scholasticism  itself,  as  well  as  by  his  venomous  irony,  to  lessen 
respect  for  the  authority  of  the  Church  and  for  faith  itself  among 
a  large  number  of  highly  cultivated  men  of  the  day.  Thus  did  he 
prepare  the  way  for  the  impetuous  and  impassioned  Luther. 

1  J.  Janssen:  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Volkes ,  20te  Auflage  besorgt  durch  L. 
von  Pastor,  1915,  ii,  p.  19,  note  2. 

2  Essay  on  Criticism ,  lines  693-696. 

3  A.  Sainte-Beuve:  Causeries  du  Lundi ,  1857,  i,  239  f.  “Le  Pere  Lacordaire, 
Orateur.” 

4  Pastor:  History  of  the  Popes ,  English  translation  ed.  by  Kerr,  vii,  315. 


424 


ERASMUS 


Quite  different  is  the  opinion  of  another  great  Catholic 
scholar,  in  some  respects  a  liberal,  Lord  Acton,  who 
called  Erasmus  the  greatest  figure  of  the  Renaissance, 
not  only  as  eminently  international,  but  also  as  the  most 
capable  of  all' men  of  living  by  historical  imagination  in 
other  times.  Though  the  narrow  range  of  his  sympathies 
is  noted,  debarring  him  from  art  and  metaphysics,  his 
diagnosis  of  contemporary  demoralization  as  due  to 
ignorance  and  misgovernment,  is  indorsed.1 

From  the  Reformers  and  their  heirs,  the  conservative 
Protestants,  Erasmus  suffered  the  singularly  cruel  fate 
of  being  pillaged  by  one  hand  and  stabbed  by  the  other. 
While  they  approved  much  of  his  program  and  learned 
at  his  feet  how  to  turn  the  criticism  both  of  morals  and 
of  dogmas  against  the  Catholics,  they  were  furious  at 
his  refusal  to  join  their  ranks,  and  frightened  by  the 
implications  of  a  spirit  more  emancipated  than  their  own. 
With  much  violence,  it  has  been  well  said,2  early  Prot- 
estanism  separated  from  the  historical  and  philological 
theology  of  the  Christian  Renaissance.  The  deep  sense 
of  opposition  was  not  confined  to  the  Reformers,  for  the 
humanist  could  no  more  accept  their  solifidian  and  pre- 
destinarian  doctrines,  based  on  a  fundamentally  anti- 
rationalistic  mysticism  and  inimical,  as  it  seemed,  to 
practical  morality,  than  they  could  indorse  the  spirit  of 
free  inquiry  and  of  philosophic  doubt  that  pervaded  the 
writings  of  the  critic.  Melanchthon,  it  is  true,  assimi¬ 
lated  his  teaching  and  tried  to  pass  it  on,  but  his  fate 
was  to  be  called  a  traitor  to  the  Lutheran  cause  and  to 
be  so  assailed  that  he  longed  for  death  to  free  him  from 
“the  rage  of  the  theologians.”  Far  more  typical  of  the 
attitude  of  the  Reformers  was  the  conduct  of  Luther, 
who  first  studied,  marked,  and  inwardly  digested  the 
works  of  the  older  scholar  and  then  fulminated  anath¬ 
emas  at  the  skeptic  he  found  lurking  under  the  mask 
of  erudition.  Though  they  controlled  their  tongues 

1  Lectures  on  Modern  History ,  1906,  pp.  86  if. 

2  E.  Troeltsch:  Protestantism  and  Progress,  1912,  pp.  48  ff. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


425 


better,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius, 
after  sitting  at  Erasmus’s  feet,  came  to  feel  about  him 
much  as  did  Luther,  and  were  regarded  by  him  in  much 
the  same  light.  Their  successors  also  thought,  as  did 
the  Catholics,  of  prohibiting  his  writings,  or  at  least  those 
repugnant  to  their  theology.1 

Calvin  seldom  if  ever  praised  Erasmus,  though  he 
borrowed  from  him  some  of  his  ideas  and  though  he  cited 
him  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  times  as  a  critical 
or  exegetical  authority.  He  drew  heavily  on  the  human¬ 
ist’s  Platonism,  his  contempt  for  the  world,  his  concept 
of  faith,  and  his  eschatology.2 

Beza  called  Erasmus  an  Arian  and  Farel  continued  to 
denounce  him  as  an  impure  scoundrel  and  as  the  worst 
and  wickedest  of  mortals.3  On  the  other  hand,  the  Swiss 
Protestant  chronicler,  John  Kessler,  who  died  in  1574, 
bore  this  witness:  “Whatever  is  artistic,  finished, 
learned,  and  wise  is  called  Erasmian,  which  word  now 
means  impeccable  and  perfect.”4 

Nor  were  the  English  Reformers  less  ready  either  to 
learn  from  or  to  denounce  the  great  man.  William 
Tyndale  borrowed  much  from  him  when  he  translated 
the  New  Testament  into  English,  but,  nevertheless, 
spoke  slightingly  of  him  as  of  one  “whose  tongue  maketh 
of  little  gnats  great  elephants  and  lifteth  up  above  the 
stars  whosoever  giveth  him  a  little  exhibition.”5 

In  the  next  century  John  Milton  found  in  Erasmus  a 


10.  Myconius  writes  Bullinger,  June  24,  1535,  that  Erasmus’s  Ecclesiastes 
ought  not  to  be  printed  in  any  Christian  city  on  account  of  the  allusion  to  the 
mass  as  a  sacrifice.  Calvini  Opera ,  x,  b,  p.  47.  ( Corpus  Reformatorum  38  b.) 

2  See  Index  to  Calvini  Opera ,  vol.  lix,  p.  76.  ( Corpus  Reformatorum,  lxxxvii, 
76.)  See  also  M.  Schulze:  Calvins  Jenseits-Christentum  im  Verhaltnis  zu 
den  religiosen  Schriften  des  Erasmus.  1902. 

3  Letter  of  protest  from  Boniface  Amerbach,  Jerome  Froben,  and  N.  Epis- 
copius  to  Farel  and  Beza,  dated  Basle,  September  20,  1557.  Calvini  Opera , 
xvi,  ep.  2728.  ( Corpus  Reformatorum,  xliv.) 

4  Johannes  Kesslers  Sabbata,  hg.  von  E.  Egli  und  R.  Schoch.  1902,  p.  87. 

5  A.  W.  Pollard:  Records  of  the  English  Bible,  1911,  p.  96.  He  borrowed  the 
phrase,  “ex  musca  plusquam  elephantem  facit,”  from  Erasmus  himself;  see 
Allen,  ep.  1148,  et  saepe. 


ERASMUS 


426 

support  for  his  doctrine  of  divorce,  and  also  used  his 
example  to  excuse  his  own  unreserved  treatment  of  vice.1 

The  Protestant  view  of  Erasmus  has  been  unduly 
emphasized  because  most  of  his  biographers  have  been 
from  this  side.  Such  was  the  English  life  by  Samuel 
Knight  (1726),  and  the  still  more  elaborate  and  thorough 
one  by  John  Jortin  (1758-60).  The  impression  made  by 
the  latter  on  a  man  of  the  world  is  well  recorded  in  one 
of  Horace  Walpole’s  letters:2 

For  Doctor  Jortin’s  Erasmus ,  which  I  have  very  nearly  finished,  it 
has  given  me  a  good  opinion  of  the  author,  and  he  has  given  me  a 
very  bad  one  of  his  subject.  By  the  doctor’s  labors  and  impartiality, 
Erasmus  appears  as  a  begging  parasite,  who  had  parts  enough  to 
discover  truth,  and  not  courage  enough  to  profess  it:  whose  vanity 
made  him  always  writing,  yet  his  writings  ought  to  have  cured  his 
vanity,  as  they  were  the  most  abject  things  in  the  world.  Good 
Erasmus’s  honest  mean  was  alternate  time-serving.  I  never  had 
thought  much  about  him,  and  now  I  heartily  despise  him. 

This  judgment  is  the  more  impressive  in  that  Jortin 
writes  not,  as  one  might  think,  to  attack  his  subject, 
but  rather  to  defend  him.  But  whereas  the  worldling 
sees  in  Erasmus  a  coward,  the  dogmatically  religious 
man  sees  in  him  only  a  worldling. 

What  a  fineness  of  judgment  [says  Professor  Hamack]3,  what  a 
power  to  look  all  around,  what  an  earnest  morality,  does  Erasmus 
develop  in  his  Diatribe  on  the  Free  Will!  One  is  justified  in  regarding 
it  as  the  crown  of  his  literary  work;  but  it  is  an  entirely  secular,  at 
bottom  an  irreligious  treatise. 

Hear  also  the  opinion  of  Bohmer:4 

As  a  genuine  optimist,  Worldly  Wiseman,  and  completely  unphilo- 
sophical  scholar,  Erasmus  really  possessed  no  organ  at  all  for  the 
perception  of  religion! 

1  Milton:  Defensio  Secunda  pro  Populo  Anglicana ,  Works ,  1806,  pp.  229, 
285,  299. 

2  To  Henry  Zouch,  October  21,  1758,  Letters  of  Horace  Walpole ,  16  vols.  1903, 
vol.  iii,  p.  205. 

3  Adolph  Harnack:  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichtef  iii,  p.  841. 

4  H.  Bohmer:  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung ,3 1910,  p.  147. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


427 


While  admitting  Erasmus’s  services  to  criticism,  to 
history,  and  to  comparative  religion,1  Walter  Kohler 
assigns  to  the  humanist  the  somewhat  difficult  role  of 
“a  John  the  Baptist  and  Judas  Iscariot  in  one!”2 

Nor  are  these  harsh  censures  confined  to  German 
scholars.  Nothing  more  crushing  has  ever  been  written 
than  the  following  words  of  Principal  T.  M.  Lindsay:3 

“A  great  scholar  but  a  petty-minded  man”  is  a  verdict  for  which 
there  is  abundant  evidence.  .  .  .  Every  biographer  has  admitted 
that  it  is  hopeless  to  look  for  truth  in  his  voluminous  correspondence. 
.  .  .  He  was  always  writing  for  effect  and  often  for  effect  of  a 
rather  sordid  kind.  .  .  .  He  had  the  ingenuity  of  a  cuttlefish  to 
conceal  himself  and  his  real  opinions;  and  it  was  commonly  used  to 
protect  his  own  skin. 

Even  the  more  conservative  Protestants,  however,  are 
in  some  places  coming  to  see  in  Erasmus  a  support  for 
their  double  ideal  of  conformity  and  clericalism  on  the 
one  side,  and  of  reasonable  liberty  of  opinion  on  the 
other.  “The  ideals  of  Erasmus  in  the  spirit  of  Luther” 
is  the  motto  proposed  by  one  of  them,  for,  in  his  opinion, 
on  the  five  chief  points  at  issue  between  the  two  leaders, 
the  verdict  is  now  in  favor  of  the  humanist.  These  moot 
points  are  said  to  concern:  (1)  the  papacy,  which  Luther 
thought  the  work  of  antichrist,  but  which  Erasmus 
regarded  as  salvable;  (2)  the  method  of  reforming  the 
Church;  (3)  toleration  of  opinion;  (4)  attitude  toward 
dogma;  (5)  freedom  of  the  will.4  Other  divines  of  the 
same  school  are  ready  to  hail  Erasmus  as  the  man  who 
“stepped  quietly  from  the  mediaeval  to  the  modern 
world,”  and  even  while  praising  him  for  his  free  spirit 
of  inquiry,  blame  him  for  some  of  his  most  logical 
deductions,  as  shown,  for  example,  in  his  too  loose  treat¬ 
ment  of  divorce.  Alike  his  glory  and  his  danger  are 
found  in  his  detached  mind,  which,  “like  a  detached 

1  W.  Kohler:  Idee  und  Personlichkeit  in  der  Kirchengeschichte ,  1910,  p.  18. 

2  Die  Klassiker  der  Religion:  Erasmus.  Hg.  von  W.  Kohler,  1917,  p.  17. 

8  History  of  the  Reformation ,  1906,  i,  pp.  172  ff. 

4  H.  G.  Smith,  “The  Triumph  of  Erasmus  in  Modern  Protestantism,” 
Hibbert  Journal,  iii,  i,  1905,  pp.  64-82. 


ERASMUS 


428 

lady,  is  an  extremely  awkward  traveling  companion  and 
for  a  monk  seemed  to  verge  on  the  improper.”1 

Not  among  the  conservatives,  but  among  the  liberal 
Christians,  did  Erasmus  fully  come  to  his  own.  Even 
in  Catholicism  there  was  a  little  band  of  his  disciples 
who  struggled  vainly  against  desperate  odds  to  find 
some  compromise,  some  spirit  of  healing  and  reform, 
in  his  precepts.  Such  were  the  devoted  German 
theologians,  John  Gropper,  Julius  Pflug,  and  George 
Wicel;  such  were  the  Italian  Catholic  Reformers, 
Victoria  Colonna,  Renee  of  Ferrara,  Isabella  d’Este;2 
and  Cardinal  Contarini.  Their  counterparts  in  the 
established  Protestant  Churches  were  found  in  Melanch- 
thon  and  in  his  disciple  Camerarius.3  With  great  effect 
the  quondam  neighbor  of  Calvin,  Sebastian  Castellio, 
spread  forth  the  words  of  Erasmus  as  one  principal 
support  for  his  noble  plea  for  toleration.4  Still  further, 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  went  John  Solomon  Semler, 
sometimes  called  “the  father  of  German  rationalism,” 
when  he  declared,  “as  an  unquestionable  truth,  that 
everything  which  the  newer  theology  had  painfully  won 
for  itself  was  already  to  be  found  in  the  great  and 
admirable  Erasmus.”5 

This  liberalizing  influence  in  Christianity  has  been 
constant.  Especially  when,  some  fifty  or  sixty  years 
ago,  a  fierce  battle  was  fought  over  the  inspiration  and 


1  J.  P.  Whitney:  “Erasmus,”  English  Historical  Review ,  1920,  1  ff. 

2  In  1537  Cardinal  Bembo  saw  pictures  of  Luther  and  Erasmus  at  Isabella’s 
castle  at  Mantua;  J.  Cartwright:  Isabella  d’Este,  ii,  378. 

3  Joachimi  Camerarii  Bapenbergensis  Epistolarum  familiarium,  libri  vif  1583. 
Camerarius  to  Jerome  Baumgartner,  July  30,  1538  (1536):  “Know  that 
Erasmus  of  Rotterdam  has  recently  died,  having  won  eternal  fame  by  his  life: 
this  news  was  brought  to  me  by  men  who  have  seen  his  grave,  as  many  have 
done,  so  that  hereafter  the  rumors  cannot  be  denied.  Though  not  unexpected, 
this  event  brought  me  some  little  chagrin,  both  for  other  causes  and  for  one 
special  reason  so  small  that  I  am  ashamed  to  mention  it.”  This  last  obscure 
allusion  perhaps  refers  to  Melanchthon’s  plan  of  visiting  Erasmus,  thwarted 
by  his  death,  a  visit  which  Camerarius  was  anxious  to  promote. 

4  S.  Castellion:  Traite  des  Heretiques ,  ed.  A.  Olivet,  1913.  R.  H.  Murray: 
Erasmus  and  Luther ,  1920,  p.  205. 

5  E.  Troeltsch:  Protestantism  and  Progress,  1912,  p.  201. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


429 

inerrancy  of  the  Bible,  the  name  of  Erasmus  was  invoked 
in  the  rational  side;  for,  according  to  J.  S.  Brewer:1 

he  claimed  to  apply  to  the  authorized  translation  of  the  Scripture 
the  same  rules  of  criticism  as  the  scholars  of  his  day  were  applying 
to  Cicero  and  to  Vergil.  In  this  respect  his  influence  on  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  was  greater  than  Luther’s;  as  the  application  of  the  principles  of 
criticism  introduced  by  Erasmus  must,  under  favorable  circumstances 
and  in  more  vigorous  hands,  lead  to  consequences  more  important. 

Andrew  D.  White,  the  distinguished  American  scholar 
and  diplomat,  and  first  president  of  Cornell  University, 
felt  so  strongly  that  the  services  of  Erasmus’s  biblical 
criticism  to  the  cause  of  enlightenment  had  been  inade¬ 
quately  appreciated,  that  at  one  time  he  intended  to 
utilize  the  large  collection  of  Erasmiana  made  by  him 
and  now  left  to  Cornell,  in  wTriting  a  biography  of  the 
humanist.2  Another  eminent  American  scholar,  Pro¬ 
fessor  George  Burton  Adams,  has  expressed  a  similar 
opinion  in  the  following  words:3 

By  no  means  the  least  of  the  great  services  of  Erasmus  to  civiliza¬ 
tion  had  been  to  hold  up  before  all  the  world  so  conspicuous  an 
example  of  the  scholar  following,  as  his  inalienable  right,  the  truth 
as  he  found  it,  wherever  it  appeared  to  lead  him,  and  honest  in  his 
public  utterances  to  the  result  of  his  studies. 

The  same  testimony  to  the  enlightening  effect  of  his 
work  is  offered  by  Mark  Pattison,4  who  thinks  that  his 
Greek  Testament  “  contributed  more  to  the  liberation 
of  the  human  mind  from  the  thraldom  of  the  clergy 
than  all  the  uproar  and  rage  of  Luther’s  many  pam¬ 
phlets.”  Erasmus  “was  a  true  rationalist  in  principle,” 
for  he  was  the  earliest  and  most  complete  exemplar  of 
the  rule  “that  reason  is  the  only  one  guide  of  life,  the 
supreme  arbiter  of  all  questions,  politics  and  religion 
included.”  If  he  did  not  “dogmatically  denounce  the 
rights  of  reason,”  yet  “he  practically  exerted  them.” 

1  J.  S.  Brewer:  “Passages  from  the  Life  of  Erasmus”  (1863),  English 
Studies ,  1881,  p.  346. 

2  See  his  Autobiography ,  1895,  index. 

3  Civilization  during  the  Middle  Ages,  1900,  pp.  423  f. 

4  “  Erasmus,”  Encyclopedia  Britannica ,  in  the  ninth  edition  and,  revised  by 
P.  S.  Allen,  in  the  eleventh,  1911. 


430 


ERASMUS 


A  similarly  high  estimate  of  the  humanist’s  services 
to  Christian  enlightenment  is  set  forth  by  Marcus  Dods, 
who  finds  the  portrait  of  Erasmus  attractive,  in  that  the 
intelligent  eyes,  the  melancholy  and  skeptical  mouth, 
and  the  ironical  smile  exhibit,  in  one  of  the  world’s 
great  faces,  scholarly  tastes  combined  with  pungent  wit. 
His  main  fault  consisted  in  too  great  optimism  in  fancy¬ 
ing  that  abuses  would  ever  be  removed  by  those  whose 
interest  it  was  to  maintain  them.1 

A  large  school  now  sees  in  the  Reformation  a  reaction. 
Another  school,  believing  that  the  Reformation  was  a 
step  forward,  sees  in  the  counter-movement  in  the 
Catholic  Church  a  great  restoration  of  medievalism. 
From  these  premises  a  rather  erratic  scholar  has  sought 
to  give  a  novel  interpretation  of  the  work  of  Erasmus  as 
“a  Counter-Reformer  before  the  Counter-Reformation.” 
His  piety,  in  the  opinion  of  Hermelink,  arose  from  the 
same  source  as  did  that  of  the  Brethern  of  the  Common 
Life,  and  finally  flowed  into  the  streams  of  Tridentine 
and  Jesuitical  reform.  “The  immediate  effect  of  the 
mediaeval  reform  movement  was,  therefore,  the  strength¬ 
ening  of  the  Counter-Reformation.”2 3 * 

Fully  as  much  as  in  the  orthodox,  or  established, 
Churches,  did  the  Erasmian  thought  work  itself  out 
to  expression  among  the  sectaries  and  independents. 
Little  as  there  seems  to  be,  at  first  blush,  in  common 
between  his  aristocratic,  highly  cultured,  almost  artifi¬ 
cially  polished  and  decorously  conforming  mind,  and  that 
of  the  plebeian,  poor,  dissenting,  popular  Anabaptists, 
nevertheless  they  found  common  ground  in  their 
emphasis  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  their  neglect 
of  ritual,  and  in  the  tolerance  and  passive  non-resistance 
characteristic  of  many,  though  not  of  all,  of  them.8 

1  M.  Dods:  Erasmus  and  other  Essays.  1891. 

s  Hermelink:  “Die  Anfange  des  Humanismus  in  Tubingen,”  Wiirttem - 
bergische  Vierteljahrshefte  fur  Landesgeschichte,  N.  F.  xv,  1906,  pp.  319  ff. 

3  P.  Althaus:  Zur  Charakteristik  der  Evangtlischen  Gebetsliteratur  im  Re - 

formationsjahrhundert ,  1914,  pp.  26  f. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


43i 


The  “  spiritual  Reformer,”  Sebastian  Franck,  a  com¬ 
bination  of  mystic  and  rationalist,  was  strongly  influ¬ 
enced,  in  some  particulars,  by  the  Dutchman.  When, 
in  1531,  he  published  his  “Chronicle,  Time-book,  and 
History-Bible,”  he  stated  that  heretic  was  a  name  of 
honor,  borne  by  the  leaders  of  thought  in  every  genera¬ 
tion,  and  that  Erasmus  deserved  that  title.  The 
humanist,  however,  did  not  appreciate  the  intended 
compliment,  but  bitterly  resented  it.1 

The  peculiar  character  of  the  Reformation  in  the 
Netherlands,  neither  Lutheran  nor  Zwinglian,  but 
humanistic,  moral,  and  averse  from  revolution,  may  be 
traced  to  Erasmus.  On  his  own  circle  of  friends, 
Cornelius  Grapheus,2  Nicholas  Buscoducensis,3  Haio 
Caminga,4  William  Gnapheus,5  and  many  another, 
Erasmus  naturally  impressed  his  ideas  and  character. 
On  the  next  generation  his  influence  was  even  stronger, 
particularly  on  the  moderate  party  known  as  the 
Compromisers,  and  on  “those  humanists  after  the  down¬ 
fall  of  humanism”  the  Libertines,  whose  name  then 
imported  devotion  to  liberty,  not,  as  it  now  does,  to 
immoral  licence.6  Indeed,  this  meaning  of  the  word, 
derived  “a  libertate  carnis,”  was  first  fastened  on  it  by 
Calvin,  who  wrote  against  “the  fantastic  and  furious 
sect”  in  1545.  Originally  they  were  a  quietist  and 

^ncken  on  S.  Franck,  in  Historische  Zeitschrift ,  Band  82,  pp.  385  ff. 

2  The  author  of  a  Vita  S.  Nicolai ,  who  later  fell  foul  of  the  Inquisition:  see 
Allen,  iii,  34  note. 

3  Probably  the  author  of  a  pseudonymous  work,  Manipulus  florum  collectus 
ex  libris  R.  P.  F.  Jacobi  de  Hochstraten ,  by  Nicholas  Quadus,  Saxo,  no  date,  a 
satire  on  Hochstraten,  Pfefferkorn,  Lee  and  Gratius.  On  this  see  Bibliotheca 
Belgica,  s.  v.  “Manipulus,”  Z.  W.,  viii,  401-420,  and  Allen,  iii,  p.  34,  note. 

4  A  famulus  to  whom  Erasmus  gave  Seneca’s  Works,  1529;  with  the  in¬ 
scription,  “Haioni  Camigae  Phrysio  amico  Des.  Erasmus  Rot.  dono  dedit,  3 
id.  Jan.  1529” — i.e.y  January  13th.  See  M.  L.  Polain  in  Melanges  offerts  a 
M.  E.  Picotf  1913,  ii,  135. 

6  Author  of  Troost  ende  Spiegel  der  sieckeny  1531,  ed.  by  F.  Pijper  in  Bib¬ 
liotheca  Reformatoria  neerlandica,  i,  15 1-249. 

6  F.  Pijper:  Erasmus  en  de  N ederlandische  Reformatie ,  1907.  H.  A.  Enno 
van  Gelder:  “Humanisten  en  Libertijnen,  Erasmus  en  C.  P.  Hooft,”  Neder- 
landsch  Archief  voor  Kerkgeschiedenis,  N.  S.  xvi,  1920,  pp.  35-84. 


432 


ERASMUS 


spiritual  body,  and  as  they  were  founded  in  the  Nether¬ 
lands  in  1530  by  one  Coppin,  they  may  have  owed  some¬ 
thing  to  the  direct  and  personal  influence  of  Erasmus.1 
He  was  also  the  spiritual  ancestor  of  James  Acontius,  the 
most  radical  Christian  of  the  sixteenth  century,  who 
regarded  positive  dogmas  as  “Stratagems  of  Satan”  to 
entangle  the  simply  pious  soul.2  In  the  Netherlands 
C.  P.  Hooft,  George  Cassander,  Francis  Balduinus, 
Johannes  Venator,  and  Dirck  Volckertszoon  Coornheert, 
exerted  themselves,  during  the  frightful  ravages  of  the 
Dutch  War  of  Independence,  to  impress  upon  their 
countrymen  a  spirit  of  tolerance,  an  indifference  to  cere¬ 
monies,  and  an  anti-dogmatism  directed  especially 
against  Calvin’s  doctrine  of  predestination.  Though 
William  of  Orange  found  in  this  party  a  useful  ally,  and 
gave  it  his  support,  their  efforts  remained  partly 
thwarted  until  Arminius  and  Episcopius  gave  their  ideas 
a  more  powerful,  but  also  a  more  narrowly  pointed, 
expression.3  A  truer,  because  a  freer,  disciple  than 
Arminius  was  Hugo  Grotius,  who  thought  that  “Erasmus, 
had  so  well  shown  the  road  to  a  reasonable  Reformation.” 
Adopting  his  description  of  Christianity  in  terms  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  his  pacifism,  his  suggestion  of  a 
world  court  of  arbitration,  Grotius  wished  to  reconcile 
Catholics  and  Protestants  and,  though  nominally  one  of 
the  latter,  was  in  many  respects  more  in  sympathy  with 
the  ideals  of  the  old  Church.4 

The  Christian  radicals  have  always  found  in  Erasmus 
an  inspiration  and  a  support.  The  Unitarian  Charles 
Beard  wrote  in  1883,  “The  Reformation  of  the  past  was 

1  Karl  Muller:  “Calvin  und  die  Libertiner,”  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchenge - 
j chichte,  xl,  1922,  pp.  83-129. 

2  W.  Kohler:  “Geistesahnen  des  J.  Acontius,”  Festgdbe  fur  K.  Muller , 
1922,  198  ff. 

3  Rachfahl:  Wilhelm  von  Oranien ,  i,  1906,  pp.  448  f,  464;  Preserved  Smith: 
The  Age  of  the  Reformation,  1920,  239  ff,  249  ff.  W.  Kohler:  “Coornheert”  in 
Die  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenwart ,  1913;  W.  Dilthey:  Das  natiirliche 
System  der  Geisteswissenschaften  im  17  Jahrhundert,  1892,  pp.  480  ff. 

4  J.  L.  Motley:  The  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  1855,  i,  72.  J.  Schliiter : 
Die  Theologie  des  H.  Grotius,  1919. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


433 


Luther’s;  perhaps  the  Reformation  of  the  future  will 
return  to  Erasmus.”1  Schlottmann,  a  “  Bible-Christian ” 
who  hoped  both  to  reform  and  to  unite  all  Churches, 
appealed  to  Erasmus  as  a  liberal  force  against  the 
Roman  Curia  after  the  triumph  of  ultra-montanism  and 
mediaevalism  at  the  Vatican  Council  of  1871.  He  called 
his  book  Erasmus  Redivivus  sive  de  Curia  Romana 
hucusque  insanabili,2  and  he  wrote  it  in  Latin  because  he 
wished  to  describe  “not  the  life,  but  the  image  of 
Erasmus  defaced  by  the  opinions  and  passions  of  divers 
parties,”  and  he  thought  that  could  only  be  done  in  the 
tongue  used  by  the  humanist  himself.  He  found  that 
“Erasmus  favored  Luther  because  of  the  gospel  and 
attacked  him  because  of  the  fatal  schism  which  was  to 
endure  for  centuries,”  and  that  the  purpose  of  the  two 
was  the  same,  but  their  methods  different. 

The  most  thorough-going  partisan  of  the  humanist  is 
a  man  who  has  little  of  his  spirit  of  moderation,  a  man 
who  derives  his  principles  from  the  skeptics  and  his  facts 
about  the  Reformation  from  the  Catholics,3  a  free-thinker 
who  laments  the  lost  unity  of  Christendom.  To  present 
the  ideas  of  so  enigmatical  a  thinker  one  must  quote 
directly  from  his  work:4 

The  Catholic  Church  needed  reform  urgently  enough,  but  the 
reform  which  it  needed  was  that  of  Erasmus,  not  of  Luther.  Had  the 
labors  of  Erasmus  not  been  blighted  by  the  passionate  appeals  of 
Wittenberg,  at  first  to  the  ignorance  of  the  masses  and  then  to  the 
greed  of  the  princes,  we  believe  that  the  Catholic  Church  might 
have  developed  with  the  intellectual  development  of  mankind,  might 
possibly  have  become  the  universal  instrument  of  moral  progress 
and  mental  culture,  and — dogmas  gradually  slipping  into  forgetful¬ 
ness — we  should  now  be  enjoying  the  blessings  of  a  universal  Church, 
embracing  all  that  is  best  in  the  intellect  of  our  own  time. 

1  The  Reformation  in  its  Relations  to  Modern  Thought  and  Knowledge ,  1883  . 
Principal  J.  Estlin  Carpenter  of  Manchester  College,  Oxford,  a  personal  friend 
of  Beard’s,  informed  me  that  that  scholar  found  Erasmus  much  more  con¬ 
genial  to  him  than  was  Luther. 

2  Two  volumes,  1883-89. 

3  Karl  Pearson:  The  Ethic  of  Freethought ,  1887.  2d  ed.  1901.  He  writes 
much  on  the  Reformation,  all  of  it  indebted  deeply  to  the  Catholic  Janssen. 

4  Op.  cit.y  2d  ed.,  pp.  199,  205. 


434 


ERASMUS 


We  have  to  inquire  whether  our  modern  thought  has  not  been  the 
outcome  of  a  gradual  return  to  the  principles  of  Erasmus,  a  con¬ 
tinuous  rejection  one  by  one  of  every  doctrine  and  every  conception 
of  Luther. 

A  far  more  mature  and  brilliant  interpretation  of  the 
forces  at  work  in  the  Reformation  has  been  given  by 
Ernst  Troeltsch,  who  sees  in  Erasmus  the  exponent  of 
reason  in  religion,  and  of  the  idea  of  reducing  Christianity 
to  a  general  cult  of  humanity.1  Wernle2  and  Karl  Muller 
also  see  in  Erasmus  the  standard-bearer  of  a  funda¬ 
mentally  new  and  reforming  concept  of  Christianity,  a 
truly  modern  religion.  Indeed,  Muller  so  far  reads  into 
Erasmus  the  ideas  now  agitating  German  theology,  that 
he  credits  him  with  finding  that  harmony  between  Jesus 
and  Paul  so  acutely  wanted  by  some  advanced  thinkers.3 
A.  Schroder  has  written  a  small  book4  on  the  modern 
traits  in  Erasmus.  These  he  finds  in  his  seductive  doubts, 
his  relativist  point-of-view,  and  his  idea  of  religious 
progress  and  religious  breadth.  Furthermore, 

Erasmus  was  modern  ...  in  that  he  knew  how  to  respect  acts 
and  facts,  but  was  no  man  of  action  himself.  ...  He  was  modern 
in  seeking  and  not  quite  finding,  ...  as  a  skeptic  and  rationalist, 
.  .  .  as  a  man  of  intellect  rather  than  of  religion. 

To  the  left  of  the  Christian  progressives  stand  the 
“  dissenters  from  all  creeds/’  Some  of  them  have  seen 
in  Erasmus  but  another  theologian.  While  Rabelais 
acknowledged  his  debt  to  the  humanist  in  the  warmest 
terms,  and  while  Montaigne5  spoke  favorably  of  him, 
Bonaventure  des  Periers  mocked  him  along  with  Luther, 
Calvin,  and  all  the  obscurantists.6 

1  E.  Troeltsch:  Kultur  der  Gegenwart ,  Geschichte  der  Christlichen  Religion , 
1909,  pp.  478  ff. 

2  Renaissance  des  Christentums  im  16.  J ahrhundert,  p.  25. 

3  Christentum  und  Kirche  Westeuropas  im  Mittelalter  ( Kultur  der  Gegenwart ), 
I,  Teil  iv,  p.  215. 

4  Der  moderne  Mensch  in  Erasmus ,  1919. 

6  Essais,  iii,  2;  and  his  whole  spirit  was  like  Erasmus’s. 

6  Cymbalum  Mundi ,  1538;  and  on  this  Zwingliana,  1922,  no.  I. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


435 


But  other  rationalists  have  now  and  then  found  much 
to  their  taste  in  Erasmus,  whose  own  skepticism  they 
have  been  inclined  to  overrate.  It  is  impossible  to  agree 
with  Amiel1  that  Erasmus  was  all  but  a  free-thinker,  an 
earlier  Voltaire  or  Littre,  or  with  Froude  that  “in  his 
love  of  pleasure,  in  his  habits  of  thought,  in  his  sarcastic 
skepticism,  you  see  the  healthy,  well-disposed,  clever, 
tolerant,  epicurean,  intellectual  man  of  the  world,”  and 
that,  if  his  spirit  had  prevailed,  the  higher  classes  would 
have  become  mere  skeptics  and  the  multitude  have 
remained  sunk  in  superstition.2 

But  we  do  find  that  the  ground  irrigated  by  his  spirit 
bloomed  with  a  freedom  of  thought  not  found  elsewhere. 
Paul  Jovius  spoke  of  him  as  surpassing  almost  all  the 
writers  of  his  age  in  the  fertility  of  his  genius,  though 
he  added,  with  somewhat  forced  assumption  of  virtue, 
that  so  pleasant  and  stinging  a  satire  as  the  Folly  was 
hardly  becoming  to  the  pen  of  a  theologian.3  The  wide 
swing  of  Elizabethan  skepticism  has  been  noted,  and  its 
leaders  were  trained  in  the  Colloquies.  Their  mark, 
indeed,  may  be  found  on  many  of  the  contemporaries  of 
Shakespeare.4  Of  all  the  Elizabethans  learned  Ben 
Jonson  owed  the  most  to  him.  The  characters  and 
situations  in  two  of  his  famous  comedies,  Volpone  and 
The  Alchemist ,  took  not  a  little  from  the  Colloquies .5 

So  often  has  Erasmus  been  compared  to  Voltaire  that 
it  may  seem  odd  that  the  French  philosophers  of  the 
Enlightenment  saw  so  little  in  him.  The  father  of  them 


1  E.  Amiel:  Un  Libre-penseur  du  XVIe  siecle ,  Erasure.  1889,  p.  xi. 

2  J.  A.  Froude:  “Times  of  Erasmus  and  Luther”  (1867),  Short  Studies  on 
Great  Subjects ,  1908,  i,  pp.  69,  13 1.  Also  Life  of  Erasmus,  1894. 

3  Paulus  Jovius:  Elogia  virorum  literis  illustrium.  Opera,  1575,  i,  175. 

4  On  Elizabethan  skepticism,  P.  Smith:  Age  of  the  Reformation,  1920,  p. 
633  ff.  On  Erasmus’s  influence  on  Lily  and  on  some  other  literature  of  Shake¬ 
speare’s  age,  see  H.  de  Vocht:  De  Invloed  van  Erasmus  op  de  Engelsche  Tooneel- 
literatuur  der  XVe  en  XVIIe  Eeuwen.  1908.  Also  “Erasmus,”  in  Ency¬ 
clopedia  Britannica,  ix,  732c. 

5  See  J.  D.  Rea’s  preface  to  his  edition  of  Volpone,  1919.  I  think  Rea  over¬ 
estimates  Erasmus’s  influence  on  The  Alchemist,  but  that  he  proves  Volpone 
to  he  largely  dependent  on  Erasmus  as  well  as  on  Lucian. 


ERASMUS 


436 

all,  Peter  Bayle,  while  furnishing  a  brief  sketch  of  his 
life  and  character,  says  not  a  word  of  his  rationalism  or 
influence.1  Voltaire,  in  his  great  Essay  on  the  Character 
and  Genius  of  Nations,2  says  only:  “  Erasmus,  although 
long  time  a  monk,  or  perhaps  rather  because  long  time 
a  monk,  doused  the  monks  with  ridicule  from  which  they 
never  recovered/’  An  anonymous  writer,  probably 
Diderot,  in  the  Encyclopedie ,  however,  calls  him  “the 
finest  wit  and  most  universal  scholar  of  his  age,”  and 
says  also:  “He  was  one  of  the  first  to  treat  theo¬ 
logical  matters  in  a  noble  manner,  free  from  vain 
subtleties.”3 

On  the  Enlightenment  in  Scandinavia,  also,  he  had 
some  influence.4 

Continuing  in  the  same  tradition,  Sainte-Beuve  calls 
Erasmus  a  moderate  Voltaire,  a  Fontenelle  with  a  saner 
literary  taste,  a  Rabelais  without  drunkenness,  a  born 
neutral  with  good  sense  and  finely  tempered  spirit.5 

Kuno  Francke  emphasizes  the  eighteenth-century-like 
rationalism  and  optimism  of  Erasmus,  and  adds:  “Almost 
all  the  liberating  ideas  on  which  the  international  culture 
of  the  present  rests  are  present  in  germ  in  his  thought- 
world.”6 

A  penetrating  analysis  of  the  Dutch  scholar’s  genius  is 
offered  by  Imbart  de  la  Tour.  After  doing  justice  to  the 
historical-minded  philosopher  who  saw  in  classic  anti¬ 
quity,  in  Judaism,  and  in  Christianity  forms  of  thought 
necessary  in  their  own  place  to  complete  one  another, 
he  goes  on: 

1  Pierre  Bayle:  Dictionnaire  Historique  et  Critique ,  1696,  s.  v.  “Erasme.” 

2  Voltaire:  Essai  sur  les  mceurs  et  V esprit  des  nations ,  1754,  chap.  127. 

3  Encyclopedie  ou  Dictionnaire  universel  raisonne ,  tome  xvi,  1772,  s.  v. 
“  Erasme.” 

4  V.  Andersen:  Tider  og  Typer ,  2  v.,  1907-9.  Holberg  paid  a  debt  to 

humanism  in  his  “Erasmus  Montanus,”  and  there  was  a  Praise  of  Lying 
written  in  imitation  of  the  Praise  of  Folly.  See  An  Icelandic  Satire  ( Lof 
Lyginnar )  by  Porleifur  Halldorsson,  ed.  H.  Hermannsson,  1915. 

6  Causeries  du  Lundi,  1857,  i,  p.  240. 

6  “Erasmus  als  Denker  und  Kunstler,”  Internationale  Monatsschrift ,  vi, 
1911-12,  pp.  269-291. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


437 


One  will  look  in  vain  in  his  work  for  that  which  was  the  power  of 
Luther  and  of  Calvin:  those  simple  ideas,  radiating  sonorous  phrases, 
thrown  out  like  a  fanfare  to  the  winds  of  heaven  .  .  .  Erasmus 
proposed  more  than  he  demonstrated.  .  .  .  Every  system  repelled 
him  like  a  jail.  .  .  .  Moreover,  this  genius  lacked  a  soul.  He 
never  vibrates  or  throws  himself  or  anyone  else  into  a  passion;  he 
suffers  only  in  his  vanity.  .  .  .  Compare  his  Christianity,  more 
intellectual  than  mystical,  with  the  richness  of  soul  and  of  accent 
found  in  Luther!  .  .  .  But  in  the  end  he  might  have  thought  he 
conquered.  His  spirit  continued,  especially  in  France  .  .  .  the 
country  in  which  Erasmianism  was  best  understood  and  in  which 
it  bore  its  finest  fruits.1 

This  influence  is  said  to  have  been  shown  in  the 
Erasmian  thought  dominating  the  early  pre-Lutheran 
reform,  and  in  the  Politiques,  who  learned  tolerance  from 
the  Colloquies.  Cartesianism  in  the  seventeenth  century 
might  be  counted  his  child;  and  modern  times  owe  much 
to  his  exegesis  and  to  his  ideals  of  progress. 

This  symposium  on  Erasmus’s  influence  and  character 
may  well  include  one  of  the  best  of  all  the  estimates, 
by  one  of  the  greatest  of  American  historians,  Henry 
Charles  Lea,  who  writes:2 

Erasmus,  the  sickly  scholar  of  Rotterdam,  the  flatterer  of  popes 
and  princes,  the  vainglorious  boaster  and  querulous  grumbler  when 
his  assaults  were  retaliated  in  kind,  is,  when  rightly  considered,  one 
of  the  most  heroic  figures  of  an  age  of  heroes.  Nowhere  else  can  we 
find  an  instance  so  marked  of  the  power  of  pure  intellect.  His  gift 
of  ridicule  was  the  most  dreaded  weapon  in  Europe  and  he  used  it 
mercilessly  upon  the  most  profitable  abuses  of  the  Church. 

As  most  of  Erasmus’s  writings  were  devoted  to  religion 
it  is  natural  that  most  of  the  estimates  should  judge  him 
by  his  relation  to  religion.  But  piety  was  not  his  only 
interest,  and  he  appeals  to  many  readers  as  a  scholar 
and  writer  rather  than  as  a  philosopher  or  theologian. 
Ever  after  the  Ciceronian  storm  had  subsided  there  were 
eminent  thinkers  who  criticized  his  scholarship.  The 

1  P.  Imhart  de  la  Tour:  Origines  de  la  Reforme,  iii,  1914,  pp.  107  ff.  The 
same  appeared  in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  May  15,  1913. 

2  Chapters  from  the  Religious  History  of  Spain,  1890,  p.  30. 


ERASMUS 


438 

younger  Scaliger  saw  many  faults  of  Latin  in  his  works, 
and  Giordano  Bruno  went  much  further  in  denouncing1 
“a  certain  prince  of  humanist  who  wrote  on  a  supply  of 
words2  such  unnecessary  things  that  he  certainly  seems 
to  have  written  folly  naturally, ”3  and  in  blaming4  him 
for  ‘‘that  present  flood  of  arrogant  and  presumptuous 
grammarians,  who  by  the  multiplication  of  books  and 
commentaries  had  led  knowledge  into  extreme  confusion 
and  crushed  it  like  the  invincible  Caeneus  under  the 
rocks  and  trees  heaped  on  him  by  the  half-animal 
Centaurs.” 

But  against  this  disparaging  estimate  countless  trib¬ 
utes  could  be  marshaled  did  space  permit.  The  greatest 
of  living  classical  scholars5  confesses  that  he  is  captivated 
by  Erasmus’s  books  whenever  he  opens  one  of  them. 
A  tremendously  high  appreciation  of  his  literary  genius 
closes  Charles  Reade’s  great  novel,  The  Cloister  and  the 
Hearth ,6  of  which  so  many  scenes  are  taken  from  the 
writings  of  the  humanist.  He  was  not  only,  says  Reade, 

the  first  scholar  and  divine  of  his  epoch;  he  was  also  the  heaven-born 
dramatist  of  his  generation.  .  .  .  Words  of  a  genius  so  high  as  his 
are  not  born  to  die:  their  immediate  effect  upon  mankind  fulfilled, 
they  may  seem  to  lie  torpid;  but  at  each  fresh  shower  of  intelligence 
Time  pours  upon  their  students,  they  prove  their  immortal  race; 
they  revive,  they  spring  from  the  dust  of  great  libraries;  they  bud, 
they  flower,  they  fruit,  they  seed,  from  generation  to  generation  and 
from  age  to  age. 

No  evaluation  of  Erasmus’s  genius  would  be  complete 
without  taking  account  of  the  opinion  of  the  master  of 
them  who  know  him,  the  scholar  whose  edition  of  the 
humanist’s  epistles  is  one  of  the  glories  of  twentieth- 
century  learning.  When  Dr.  P.  S.  Allen  asks  himself 


1  J.  Bruni  Opera  latine  conscripta,  ii,  part  iii,  p.  376. 

2 1.e.  the  De  Copia  Verborum. 

3  “Pro  more,”  a  pun  on  the  Moria,  or  Folly. 

4  De  triplici  minimo  et  mensura,  quoted  by  V.  Spampanato:  Vita  di 
Giordano  Bruno ,  i,  1921,  p.  74. 

5  U.  von  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff:  Geschichte  der  Philologie ,  1921,  p.  19. 

6  Published  1861. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


439 

what  was  the  secret  of  Erasmus’s  remarkable  ascendancy, 
he  replies:1 

It  may  be  found  in  a  combination  of  brilliant  intellectual  gifts  with 
absolute  sincerity  and  enduring  purpose.  As  a  thinker  he  was  not 
perhaps  profound.  .  .  .  His  strength  lay  rather  in  the  power  to 
grasp  important  truths  and  to  present  them  with  cogency  in 
spontaneous,  irresistible  eloquence;  never  succumbing  to  the  tempta¬ 
tions  which  beset  many  brilliant  minds,  to  pursue  novelty  and 
paradox  at  the  cost  of  making  the  better  appear  the  worse,  and,  for 
fear  of  cant,  to  bespatter  in  their  mirth  the  high  things  they  really 
venerate. 

Dr.  Allen’s  words  are  welcome  not  only  for  their 
insight  but  for  their  evidence  of  the  wish  to  judge  the 
man  by  his  best  achievement.  But,  though  we  should 
not  be  partisans — poor  Erasmians  if  we  were! — we  must, 
in  closing,  speak  once  more  of  his  moral  ideals  and  of 
the  part  he  played  in  the  great  battle  of  his  age. 

The  man  to  whom  all  Europe  turned  at  the  crisis  of 
religious  conflict  as  to  an  umpire  and  whom  zealots 
then  reviled  because  he  would  not  prostitute  his  judicial 
office  to  their  petty  ends,  can  be  neither  accepted  by  us 
as  having  spoken  the  final  word  on  the  Reformation,  nor 
reproached  for  not  anticipating  the  verdict  that  we 
ourselves  may  give.  In  the  light  of  four  centuries  we 
have  little  excuse  for  not  rendering  a  fairer  judgment 
and  for  not  taking  a  wider  view  than  even  he,  in  the 
thick  of  the  conflict,  was  able  to  do.  Convinced  as  I  am 
that  the  Reformation  was  fundamentally  a  progressive 
movement,  the  culmination  of  the  Renaissance,  and 
above  all  the  logical  outcome  of  the  teachings  of  Erasmus 
himself,  I  cannot  but  regard  his  later  rejection  of  it  as  a 
mistake  in  itself  and  as  a  misfortune  to  the  cause  of 
liberalism.  But,  for  his  decision  to  keep  “au-dessus  de 
la  melee,”  I  cannot  petulantly  find  fault  with  him.  The 
world  is  too  big  a  stage,  human  motives  and  aspirations 
are  too  complex,  to  allow  the  historian  to  choose  one 

1  P.  S.  Allen:  Erasmus.  A  lecture  delivered  for  the  Genootschap  Nederland- 
Engeland  &c.,  1922,  p.  15. 


440 


ERASMUS 


man  or  one  cause  as  eternally  right  and  so  condemn  all 
others  as  wrong.  The  drama  would  be  poorer  were  there 
less  variety  of  character;  among  its  dramatis  persona  it 
needs  diverse  types:  Luther  and  Loyola,  Erasmus,  and 
Valla,  and  Rabelais. 

And  it  is  futile  to  judge  him  by  one  issue  forced  upon 
him  late  in  life  and  against  his  will.  How,  with  his  per¬ 
sonality,  could  he  have  acted  otherwise  than  as  he  did? 
Physically  a  small  man,  thin,  slight,  and  pale;1  everything 
about  his  form  and  chiseled  features  indicated  delicacy, 
refinement,  exquisite  temper.  If  Luther  was  a  Richard 
Cceur  de  Lion  whose  sword  could  cleave  a  bar  of  iron, 
Erasmus  was  a  Saladin,  whose  blade  could  sever  a  pillow 
without  knocking  it  down.  His  tastes  were  fastidious 
and  shrinking,  as  if — one  may  repeat  the  epigram  once 
more— -he  had  been  descended  from  a  long  line  of  maiden 
aunts.  His  eyelids,  veiling  his  eyes  demurely,  do  not  keep 
him  from  keen  vision,  but  only  from  fierce  glances;  his 
mouth  is  curved  in  kindly  irony,  which  is  perhaps  the 
ripest  of  all  moods  in  which  poor  humanity  can  look  at 
itself. 

Purely  intellectual  as  he  was,  he  could  not  be  a  par¬ 
tisan,  not  because  of  timidity,  but  because  he  saw  the 
good  and  the  bad  of  all  sides.  He  would  not  follow 
Luther,  because  he  had  mixed  some  evil  with  his  good; 
he  could  not  wish  him  utterly  crushed,  because  of  the 
Pharisees  in  the  Catholic  Church.  He  was  always  mak¬ 
ing  exceptions,  discovering  distinctions,  and  toning  down 
an  otherwise  too  glaring  statement.  He  could  hardly 
write  anything  without  some  hedging,  some  slight  doubt 
as  to  the  unqualified  validity  of  what  he  said.  He, 
almost  alone  in  his  age,  knew  that  truth  had  many  facets, 
that  no  rule  can  be  without  exceptions,  and  that  no 
position  is  unassailable. 

If  his  life  did  not  furnish  another  example  of  supreme 
self-sacrifice  and  heroism,  still  less  did  it  have  in  it  any¬ 
thing  vulgar,  or  angry,  or  ugly.  As  I  compare  his  por- 

1  Allen,  iv,  169.  Letter  of  Lee.  See  also  his  portraits. 


THE  GENIUS  OF  ERASMUS 


441 


trait  with  that  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  I  find  that  More's 
face  is  the  one  on  which  I  love  to  look  for  occasional 
inspiration,  but  Erasmus’s  is  the  face  of  the  man  I  should 
prefer  to  live  with.  More  would  die  for  his  faith,  and 
would  have  you  punished  for  yours;  Erasmus  would 
be  companionable  and  chatty  and  courteous  and  tolerant 
even  to  an  infidel.  What  anecdotes  the  man  could  tell, 
what  pictures  he  could  call  up,  what  wit  he  could 
scintillate!  And,  above  all,  how  much  one  might  have 
learned  from  him,  both  in  matters  of  mere  erudition  and 
in  the  conduct  of  life! 

As  the  broadest  scholar  and  as  the  most  polished  wit 
of  his  generation  Erasmus  is  sure  of  a  lasting  place  in  the 
history  of  literature  and  of  learning.  As  that  actor  in  the 
great  contemporary  revolution  who  typified  the  contact 
of  Renaissance  and  Reformation,  who  felt  most  deeply 
their  common  spirit  and  most  delicately  their  various 
contrasts,  his  biography  is  worthy  of  close  study.  Most 
of  all  does  he  deserve  to  be  remembered  for  the  rare 
spirit  which  combined  the  ethical  and  the  rational;  for 
the  common  sense  really  so  uncommon,  and  for  the 
humanity  so  called,  one  might  think,  like  “lucus  a  non 
lucendo,”  from  its  conspicuous  absence  in  many  human 
breasts.  That  he  saw  through  the  accretions  of  super¬ 
stition,  dogma,  and  ritual  to  the  “ philosophy  of  Christ”; 
that  he  let  his  mind  play  freely  on  the  sacred  arcana  of 
the  traditional  faith;  that  he  recognized  reason  as  the 
final  arbiter  in  these  matters  as  well  as  in  social  and 
political  affairs — all  this  is  the  noble  genius  of  Erasmus. 


APPENDICES 


'  l 


APPENDIX  I 


THE  YEAR  OF  ERASMUS’S  BIRTH 

THE  data  for  calculating  the  birth  year  of  Erasmus 
can  be  found  partly  in  the  sayings  of  his  friends, 
inscriptions,  and  allusions,  but  most  reliably  in  his  own 
writings.  It  is  remarkable  that  his  statements  differ 
widely.  A  number  of  indirect  statements  point  to  the 
year  1469  or  even  later.  Thus  he  says  several  times  that 
he  was  fourteen  years  old  when  he  left  Deventer  (LB.  i, 
921  f;  viii,  561;  Allen,  ep.  940),  which  happened  in 
1484.  Again,  he  says  he  was  twelve  years  old  when  he 
saw  Agricola,  probably  in  1484.  He  tells  us  that  when 
he  met  Colet,  in  the  autumn  of  1499,  they  were  both 
just  thirty  years  old  (Allen,  ep.  1211).  He  says  he  wrote 
a  letter  to  his  guardian  at  the  age  of  fourteen;  if  this  is 
the  letter  printed  by  Allen,  ep.  1,  as  in  1484,  he  must 
have  been  born  in  1469,  which  is  the  year  that  all  the 
other  data  just  given  indicate,  save  the  saying  about 
Agricola,  which  would  point  to  a  later  year. 

Most  of  his  direct  statements  of  his  age,  however, 
point  to  an  earlier  year.  The  list  drawn  up  by  Doctor 
Richter,  revised  by  Mr.  Nichols  (i.  474  fF)  is  here  given 
again  revised  and  expanded  by  myself.  First  I  give  the 
source  and  afterward,  in  parentheses,  the  year  to  which 
the  statement  points: 

I.  Carmen  de  senectutis  incommodis ,  August,  1506.  LB.  iv,  756a. 

(1466.) 

2.  Methodus  verae  theologiae ,  March,  1516.  (1466  or  1467.) 

3.  Epistle  to  Rhegius,  February  24,  1516.  Allen,  ep.  392.  (1467.) 

4.  Epistle  to  Bude,  February  15,  1517.  Allen,  ii,  p.  469.  (1466.) 

5.  Epistle  to  Capito,  February  26,  1517.  Allen,  ep.  541.  (1466.) 
6.  Apologia  ad  Fabrum ,  August  5,  1517.  LB.  x,  20.  (1466.) 


446  APPENDIX 

7.  Epistle  to  Stromer,  August  24,  1517.  Allen,  ep.  631. 

(1467  or  before.) 

8.  Epistle  to  Eck,  May  15,  1518.  Allen,  ep.  844.  (1466  or  1467.) 

9.  Preface  to  Methodus ,  2d  ed.,  1518.  LB.  v,  79.  (1466.) 

10.  Epistle  to  Rhenanus,  October,  is  18.  Allen,  ep.  867. 

(1467  or  before.) 

11.  Epistle  to  Ambrose  Leo,  October  15,  1518.  Allen,  ep.  868. 

(1465  or  1466.) 

12.  Epistle  to  Theodorici,  April  17,  1519.  Allen,  ep.  940.  (1466.) 

13.  Epistle  to  Gaverus,  March  1,  1524.  Lond.  xxiii,  5;  LB.  iii,  787D. 

(1465  or  1466.) 

14.  Compendium  Vitcz>  March  2,  1524.  Alien,  i,  47.  (1466.) 

15.  Epistle  to  Stromer,  December  10,  1524.  Lond.  xix,  4;  LB.  iii, 

833F.  (1465  or  1466.) 

16.  Epistle  to  Bude,  August  25,  1525.  Lond.  xix,  89;  LB.  iii,  885C. 

(1464  or  earlier.) 

17.  Epistle  to  Nicholas  Hispanus,  April  29,  1526.  Lond.  xxi,  24; 

LB.  iii,  932C.  (1465  or  earlier.) 

18.  Epistle  to  Baptista  Egnatius,  May  6,  1526.  Lond.  xxi,  39; 

LB.  iii,  93 5E.  (1465  or  earlier.) 

19.  Epistle  to  Gratianus  Hispanus,  March  15,  1526.  Lond.  xix,  54; 

LB.  iii,  1067B.  (1464.) 

20.  Epistle  to  Binck,  September  4,  1531.  Lond.  xxv,  2,  col.  1331. 

(1461  or  later.) 

21.  To  Peter  and  Christopher  Mesia,  December  24,  1533.  Lond. 

xxvii,  22.  col.  1530DE.  (1464  or  soon  after.) 

22.  Epistle  to  Amerbach,  June,  1534.  E pistol#  jamili ares  D.  Erasmi 

ad  Bon.  Amerbachium,  1779,  ep.  90.  (1464.) 

23.  Epistle  to  Decius,  August  22,  1534.  Miaskowski,  Philosophisches 

Jahrbuchy  xv,  p.  333.  (1464.) 

Combining  these  data,  we  see  that  five  indirect  refer¬ 
ences  to  events  early  in  Erasmus’s  life  point  to  1469  as 
the  year  of  birth,  and  one  to  1472,  or  possibly  an 
earlier  year.  Of  the  direct  references,  the  first  fifteen, 
falling  between  the  year  1506  and  1524,  point  mostly 
to  1466,  but  some  to  1465  or  to  1467.  All  can  be  made 
to  agree  with  1466  except  one  which  gives  1467.  But, 
of  the  last  eight  references,  falling  between  the  years 
1525  and  1534,  all  point  to  the  year  1464  or  can  be  made 
to  agree  with  it.  It  therefore  seems  that  Erasmus  tended 
to  put  the  year  of  his  birth  farther  back  the  older  he 
became.  For  a  solution  of  the  enigma  see  ante ,  pp.  7  f. 


APPENDIX  II 


UNPUBLISHED  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  ERASMUS 
AND  JEAN  DE  PINS 

THE  letters  here  published  are  taken  from  the  manu¬ 
script  letter-book  of  Jean  de  Pins,  at  the  Bibliotheque 
Municipale  at  Nimes,  no.  215  (old  number  13,864). 
At  least  ten  years  ago  my  friend,  Prof.  John  Lawrence 
Gerig,  of  Columbia  University,  called  my  attention  to 
them  and  now,  thanks  to  the  kindness  of  the  Librarian 
at  Nimes,  M.  Joseph  de  Loye,  I  am  enabled  to  publish 
them. 

Jean  de  Pins  (1470?-! 537)  of  Toulouse,  studied  at 
Paris  and  in  Italy.  During  a  five-year  stay  at  Bologna 
he  met  Erasmus  and  Bombasius.  The  correspondence 
between  himself  and  Erasmus  did  not  start,  however, 
until  many  years  later,  when  the  Dutch  humanist 
wanted  to  get  a  manuscript  of  Josephus.  He  first  wrote 
to  George  d’Armagnac,  Bishop  of  Rodez,  who,  he  had 
heard,  possessed  a  valuable  codex  of  this  author.  This 
letter,  dated  19  November,  1531,  is  extant  and  published 
Lond.  xxv,  3;  LB.  1203,  with  the  mistaken  super¬ 
scription  “Episcopo  Rivensi”  instead  of  “  Ruthenensi.” 
D’Armagnac  wrote  Erasmus  that  De  Pins  had  the 
codex  of  Josephus,  and  the  following  letters  are  con¬ 
cerned  chiefly  about  that,  though  also  about  othel 
things,  particularly  the  fate  of  Bombasius  and  the  diffi¬ 
culties  that  Erasmus’s  first  letter  prepared  for  De  Pins 
at  the  hands  of  the  enraged  heresy-hunters.  Though 
appointed  in  1523  Bishop  of  Rieux,  De  Pins  continued 
to  reside  at  Toulouse.  On  him  see  Allen,  iii,  p.  510  f; 
R.  C.  Christie,  Dolet ,  1880,  pp.  5 7-67;  Revue  des 
Bibliotheque s>  xv,  1905,  pp.  203-208. 


447 


448  APPENDIX 

I.  Erasmus  to  De  Pins. 

Nimes  MS.  no.  215,  fol.  168  verso.  Freiburg,  March  20 ,  1332. 

Erasmus  Roterodamus  clarissimo  viro  D.  D.  Joanni  Pino  episcopo 
Rivensi  in  Gallia  s.p. 

Mihi  quidem  non  infelix  error  qui  dulcissimae  societatis  quae 
Bononiae  quondam  in  optimis  studiis  fuit  memoriam  refricuit.  Per- 
suasum  erat  nobis  Josephum  graecum  esse  apud  reverendissimum 
dominum  episcopum  Ruthenensem.  Is  scripsit  eum  esse  in  tuis  bonis 
atque  ad  te  postliminio  rediisse.  Optimam  itaque  spem  mihi  facit 
tua  humanitas  olim  cominus  perspecta  explorataque  fore  ut  ejus 
voluminis  copiam  ad  menses  aliquot  facias  Hieronymo  Frobenio  qui 
adhibitis  aliquot  eruditis  viris  Historicum  cumprimis  clarum  sed 
interpretum  ac  scribarum  inscitia  misere  depravatum  contamina- 
tumque  ex  fide  graeei  codicis  restituere  decrevit.  Ea  res  ut  non 
parum  conducet  publicis  studiis  ita  nonnihil  laudis  apponet  tuo 
quoque  nomini.  Hieronymus  vir  est  exploratae  fidei,  attamen  si 
quid  addubitas  me  sponsorem  accipe,  nihil  enim  hie  metuo. 

Illud  oraculi  rrapador ?/  cupio  scire  quid  agat  noster  Bombasius; 
multis  enim  annis  nihil  de  illo  licuit  inaudire.  Proximis  literis 
significavit  se  petere  Bononiam  cum  suo  cardinali1  qui  nuper  decessit 
numeraturum  tria  ducatorum  millia  pro  Praetorio  quod  fuerat 
mercatus.  Preaterea  si  quid  est  omnino  in  quo  amplitudini  tuae  hie 
humilis  olim  amiculus,  nunc  servulus,  gratum  facere  potest,  experieris 
ad  omnia  imperata  promptissimum.  Bene  vale.  Datum  Friburgi 
Brisgoae,  20  die  Martii,  anno  1532.  Erasmus  Roterodamus  mea 
manu  extempore. 


II.  De  Pins  to  Erasmus. 

Nimes  MS.  no.  215.  fol.  165  verso.  Toulouse,  1532. 

Johannes  Pinus  Erasmo  Roterodamo  salutem. 

Redditae  sunt  mihi  jucundissimae  et  optatissimae  literae  tuae, 
Erasme  mi  suavissime,  quae  difficile  credas  quantam  primo  suo 
adventu  tragediam  excitarint,  quod  in  quorundam  hominum  manus 
inciderant,  qui  tibi  non  satis  aeque  videantur,  et  apud  quos  tu  quoque 
male  admodum  audias.  Libuit  clanculum  odorari,  si  quid  alicunde 
causae  aut  comminisci  aut  elicere  possem.  Sed  ego  nihil  aliud 
in  causa  esse  existimo  quam  quod  illi  viri  alioquin  boni  quorundam 
hominum  nota  sunt  addicti  vehementiusque  quos  tu  passim  in  tuis 
libris  offenderis,  at  vel  laceraris  potius  et  vexaris  immanius  ut  ipsi 
et  apud  me,  et  apud  alios,  saepe  sunt  questi.  Hi  quod  se  magni 

1  Cardinal  Lorenzo  Pucci,  who  died  c.  September  16,  1531.  Bombasius, 
however,  had  perished  at  the  sack  of  Rome,  on  May  6,  1527. 


APPENDIX 


449 


aliquid  in  his  inventuros  sperarant  quasi  vero  inter  Erasmum  et 
Pinum  per  literas  nihil  nisi  de  regno  aut  regni  conjuratione  agi 
deberet,  primo  tumultum  ingentem  moverant  et  me  inscio  atque 
etiam  absente,  nam  turn  forte  ab  urbe  paulisper  rusticatum  abieram, 
librariolos  quosdam  qui  eas  literas  Parisiis  attulerant,  in  carcerem 
conjecerint,  quoniam  hi  et  tergiversari  nonnihil,  et  neque  satis 
propere  eas  literas  eorum  manibus  readere  viderentur.  Verum  illico 
illi,  qui  primum  quodam  veluti  furore  perciti  videbantur  ad  sanitatem 
atque  ad  modestiam  redierunt,  literasque  non  nisi  me  praesente  aut 
assentiente  resignare  voluerunt.  Quod  cum  his  facile  annuissem 
hique  in  literis  nihil  nisi  de  Josepho  quodam  scriptum  reperiissent, 
turn  vero  illis  et  labra  concidisse  crederes  et  plane  cornicum  oculos 
confixos  esse.  Ipse  vero  interim  mecum  coepi  ridere  fabulam  quam 
neque  tibi  ipsi  ignotam  esse  volui,  ut  si  tu  quo  pacto  potes  aut  si  id 
forsan  quidquid  est  tanti  totum  existimas,  id  genus  hominum  tibi 
resarcias  gratiam,  nisi  earn  forte  adeo  concisam  putas  ut  difficile 
posthac  coituram  ac  cicatricem  inde  abducturam  existimes.  Scis 
quo  innuam  eoque  apertius  nihil  loquor. 

Jamque  ad  tuas  literas  quibus  quod  apud  me  Forbonii  [sic]  tui 
causam  agis  de  Josepho  cogor  et  ipse  altius  repetere  quo  tibi  res  tota 
innotescat:  Proximis  annis  Petro  Gyllio1  viro  eruditissimo  episcopi 
Ruthenensis  homini  nobis  multis  de  causis  amicissimo  familiari  ac 
domestico  Josephum  meum  utendum  dederam,  qui  postea  quam  bona 
fide  ad  dominum  postliminio  rediisset.  Coepi  ego  multorum  literis  ac 
precibus  fatigari  ut  eundem  Lugdunum  formis  excudendum  mitterem 
quod  etsi  et  grave  admodum  mihi  ac  permolestum  esset,  quoniam  eo 
libro  aegre  admodum  carerem  quern  et  redemeram  magni  olim 
Venetiis  et  duorum  doctissimorum  sae  culi  nostri  hominum  Philelphi2 
ac  deinceps  Leonardi  Justiniani  Veneti3  fuisse  rescieram,  proinque 
eum  mihi  castigatissimum  esse  persuaseram;  vicerat  tamen  amicorum 
assidua  quaedam  et  indefessa  sedulitas,  meque  vel  invitum  in  ea  re 
herbam  porrigere  coegerat,  jamque  a  me  librum  abstulerant.  Quum 
ecce  Rutenensis  episcopi  literae  ad  me  quibus  tuae  quoque  ad  ipsum 
inclusae  erant,  quibus  a  me  petebat  sed  tarn  obnixe  ut  nihil  fieri 
vehementius  potest  ut  tibi  ad  aliquot  menses  libri  ejus  copiam  ac 
potestatem  facerem.  Ego  vero  ubi  primum  Erasmi  mei  amicorum 
vetustissimi,  ac  jam  quoque  literarum  facile  principis  mentionem 
audivi,  exilui  sane  gaudio  sed  quod  paulo  post  subito  merore  muta- 
tum  est  nam  quid  facerem  aliud  cum  me  nec  tibi  nec  Ruthenensi 

1  P.  Gylli  (1490-1555)  was  prior  of  Durenque.  On  him  see  Thuasne  in 
Revue  des  Bibliotheques,  xv,  1905,  pp.  203  ff. 

2  Francesco  Filelfo  (1398-1481),  one  of  the  great  humanists  of  the  Italian 
Renaissance. 

3  Leonardo  Giustiniani  (1388-1446),  a  Venetian  senator,  translator,  and 
author.  His  version  of  Plutarch’s  Lives  of  Cinna  and  Lucullus  shows  that  he 
knew  Greek. 


450 


APPENDIX 


nostro  gratificari  posse  conspicerem.  Jam  liber  dominium  nostrum 
exierat  nec  revocandi  spes  ulla  reliqua  facta  videbatur.  Juvit  nos 
tamen  Deus  optimus  maximus  ac  negotium  ipsum  repente  in  melius 
vertit,  nam  denuo  mihi  praeter  spem  libri  potestas  facta  est.  Noli 
quaerere  quanam  id  ratione  sit  factum,  nam  si  dicere  coepero,  et 
audienti  tibi  et  mihi  ipsi  quoque  dicenti  fastidium  pariam.  Misi 
itaque  librum  confestim  ad  Rutenensem  nostrum  nam  et  is  forte  sub 
id  tempus  in  urbem  advenerat  Armoniacam  Aquitaniae  Provinciam 
petiturus  in  qua  summum  pro  rege  Navarrae  magistratum  gerit  qui 
se  fideliter  curaturum  est  pollicitus  ut  ad  te  liber  sanus  et  integer 
perveniat.  Proin  tu  si  ita  videbitur  hominem  literis  tuis  appella, 
quanquam  id  minime  omnium  necessarium  existimem.  Scio  enim 
eum  pro  ingenita  sua  bonitate  fidem  praestaturum  quam  dederit. 

Venio  jam  ad  extremam  epistolae  tuae  particulam  qua  petis  a  me 
ut  si  de  Bombasio,  communi  nostro  amico,  certi  quicquam  habeam 
velim  te  certiorem  facere.  Ego  vero  iam  plusculos  annos  de  eo  nihil 
audivi,  nisi  quod  fatali  ilia  Romanae  urbis  direptione  periisse  homi¬ 
nem  rumor  quidam  (utinam  falsus)  vulgeraverat.  Quo  etiam  excidio 
Petrum  Alcyonium1  venetum  interfectum  narrabant,  neque  hue 
posthac  de  his  certius  quicquam  allatum  est.  Quare  cepi  non  parvam 
ex  epistola  tua  consolationem  quod  scribis  a  Bombasio  literas 
accepisse,  quibus  se  Bononiam  petere  nuntiabat.  Subdue,  amabo, 
rationem  temporis  ut  scire  possim  id  ante  an  post  excidium  fuerit. 
Quod  si  post  acceperis  et  vanum  fuisse  rumorem  intelligam  et 
hominem  nobis  amicissimum  vivere  adhuc  et  salvum  esse  sperare 
nobis  licebit.  Qua  una  re  nihil  in  vita  nobis  jucundius  aut  gratius 
contingere  posset. 

Vale,  Erasme  carissime,  et  me,  ut  facis,  ama. 

III.  Erasmus  to  De  Pins. 

Nimes  MS.  215,  fol.  170.  Freiburg,  Jan .  30,  1533. 

Reverendissimo  domino  Joanni  Pino  episcopo  Rivensi,  Erasmus 
Roterodamus. 

Risi  tragicos  tumultus  istorum  sed  exitu  comico  etc.2  Josephus 
iam  est  in  manibus  Hieronymi  Frobenii  quo  nomine  plurimam  habeo 
gratiam  tuae  mihi  iam  olim  cognitae  humanitati.  Curabo  ut  codex 
incorruptus  ad  te  redeat  nam  Frobenius  nondum  decrevit  exemplar 
graecum  excudere  sed  ad  hujus  collationem  latinam  emendare  trans- 
lationem.  Is  vero  sperabat  totum  Josephum  at  tuus  codex  tantum 
tenet  [?]  historiam  belli  Judaici  etc.2  Bene  vale.  Friburgi,  3  cal. 
februarii,  anno  1533. 

1  Alcyonius,  a  Venetian  pupil  of  Musurus,  professor  of  Greek  at  Florence, 
who  died  in  1527,  either  at  or  shortly  after  the  sack  of  Rome.  Allen,  ii,  p.  315. 

2  So  in  MS. 


APPENDIX 


45i 


IV.  De  Pins  to  Erasmus. 

Nimes  MS.  215,  fol.  167.  ( 1333  or  1534.) 

Legit  mihi  nuper,  suavissime,  literas  etc.1  Josephum  meum  quem 
proximis  annis  tuo  rogatu  Frobenio  misi,  velim  ad  me  remittendum 
cures,  si  ille  satis  commode  usus  fuerit.  Sin  minus  expectabo  ipse  in 
tuam  gratiam  tantisper,  vel  quantocunque  meo  incommodo,  dum 
ille  suum  commodum  faciat.  Vale.  Tui  honoris  semper  et  nominis 
cupidissimus  et  amantissimus  Pinus,  Rivensis  episcopus. 

V.  Erasmus  to  De  Pins. 

Nimes  MS.  215,  fol.  169.  Freiburg,  Nov.  13 ,  1534 . 

Erasmo  Roterodamo. 

Joanni  Pino,  episcopo  Rivensi  D.  Erasmus  S.  P. 

Quo  pristinam  erga  me  benevolentiam  constanter  obtines,  orna- 
tissime  praesul,  mihi  quidem  est,  ut  esse  par  est,  gratissimum.  Variis 
incommodis  ad  tolerantiam  exerceor.  Luterus  in  me  scripsit  epistolam 
simpliciter  furiosam,  ac  tarn  improbe  mendacem  ut  displiceat  etiam 
Luteranissimis;  minatur  etiam  atrociora.  Nicolaus  Herborn,2  Fran- 
ciscanus,  com[missarius]  generalis  cismontanus,  edidit  sermones  quad- 
ragesimales  non  in  aliud  nisi  ut  acerrimis  conviciis  me  aspergeret. 
Sunt  qui  libellos  famosos  in  me  scriptos  recitant,  sed  apud  symmistas 
duntaxat,  quorum  de  nostro  erat  Buschius  qui  nuper  decessit.  Nec 
minima  pars  molestiarum  venit  a  famulis.  Nuper  sceleratissimam 
viperam  fovi  in  sinu  meo  credens  me  habere  fidelem  ministrum; 
occideret  me  si  posset  impune.  Accedit  his  senectus  in  dies  magis  ac 
magis  ingravescens  quae  me  nimium  frequenter  chyragra  et  podagra 
discruciat.  Sic  visum  tamen 3  01  ovde  ol  6eol  /ll&xovtcu.  Josephum 
tuum  nunquam  vidi.  Scripsi  Hieronymo,  ut  nuncio,  qui  tuas  red¬ 
didit,  tradat  codicem,  quod  non  dubito  eum  facturum.  Ejus  nomine 
tibi  quoque  gratias  ago.  Vale.  Friburgi,  13  die  novembris  1534. 
Erasmus  Roterodamus,  mea  manu. 

VI.  Erasmus  to  De  Pins. 

Nimes  MS.  215,  fol.  169.  Freiburg,  May  19 ,  1333. 

Johanni  Pino,  episcopo  Rivensi,  d.  Erasmus  R. 

Reverendissime  praesul,  dederam  cuidam  theologo4  negotium  ut 

1  So  in  MS. 

2  Nicholas  of  Herborn  in  Nassau  (1535)  called  Stagefyr  in  satire,  after  work¬ 
ing  in  vain  against  the  Reformation  in  Hesse,  came  to  preach  at  Cologne  in 
1527.  In  his  Lenten  Sermons  of  1530  he  attacked  Erasmus  as  more  dangerous 
than  Luther  or  Zwingli.  See  L.  Schmitt:  Der  Kolner  Theologe  Nik.  Stagefyr  und 
der  Franziscaner  Nik.  Herborn.  1896. 

3  Blank  in  MS.  The  whole  Greek  sentence  is  perhaps  ’A vayntj  (T  ovde 
Oeol  ftaxovrai,  from  Simonides  of  Ceos,  as  handed  down  in  Stobaeus,  Eclog. 
I,  42C.  This  reference  I  owe  to  Professor  H.  de  Forest  Smith. 

4  Damian  a  Goes,  see  Erasmus’s  letter  to  him  August  25, 1534.  LB.  ep.  1271. 


452 


APPENDIX 


Bononiae  inquireret  de  Paulo  Bombasio.  Is  scribit  se  a  Bombasii 
fratre  accepisse  quod  Romae  interfectus  sit  a  militibus  Borbonicis.1 
Doleo  tibi  rem  esse  cum  chiragra  cum  quo  malo  mihi  iam  biennium 
dira  conflictatio  est.  Dominus  te  servet  incolumen. 

Friburgi,  19  die  Maii,  1535.  Erasmus  Roterodamus,  mea  manu. 

the  Imperial  army  under  Charles,  Constable  of  Bourbon. 


APPENDIX  III 


UNPUBLISHED  POEMS  OF  ERASMUS  AND  GAGUIN 


The  British  Museum  contains  an  illuminated  MS.,  Egerton  1651, 
with  some  poems  and  one  letter  of  Erasmus,  apparently  all  in  con¬ 
temporary  copy,  and  most  likely  of  the  years  1499-1500.  Some  of 
these  have  been  published,  but  there  are  still  four  unpublished.  The 
contents  of  the  MS.  in  detail  is  as  follows. 

1.  Letter  to  Prince  Henry  of  England,  1499, 
Allen,  ep.  104. 

Allen  conjectures  (iv.  p.  xxi)  that  this  letter,  and  the  poems  were 
actually  presented  to  Prince  Henry,  and  he  collates  the  letter,  ibid., 
with  the  form  late  printed. 

2.  In  laudem  angelorum,  printed  LB.  v,  1321. 

3.  De  Michaele,  ibid. 

4.  Gabrielis  laus,  ibid.  1323. 

5.  Raphaelis  laus,  ibid. 

6.  De  angelis  in  genere,  ibid.  1324. 

7.  Hendecasillabum  carmen,  LB.  i,  1217. 

8.  In  [annales]  Ga[guini]  et  [eclogas]  Faustinas]. 
LB.  i,  1217. 

9.  Carmen  Extemporale. 

This  ode  to  Skelton  was  never  published,  perhaps  because  Skelton 
did  not  reciprocate  with  the  eulogy  of  Erasmus  evidently  expected 
from  him.  See  ante ,  p.  62. 

Quid  tibi  facundum  nostra  in  preconia  fontem 
Solvere  collibuit, 

Aeterna  vates  Skelton  dignissime  lauro 
Castaldumque  decus. 

Nos  neque  Pieridum  celebravimus  antra  sororum 
Fonte  nec  Aonio; 


453 


454 


APPENDIX 


Ebibimus  vatum  ditantes  ora  liquores 
At  tibi  Apollo  Chelim 
Auratam  debit,  et  vocalia  plectra  sorores. 

Inque  tuis  labiis 

Dulcior  hybleo  residet  suadela  liquore; 

Se  tibi  Calliope 

Infudit  totam;  tu  carmine  vincis  olorem. 

Cedit  et  ipse  tibi 

Ultro  porrecta  cithara  Rhodopeius  Orpheus. 

Tu  modulante  lyra 

Et  mulcere  feras  et  duras  ducere  quercus 
Tu  potes  et  rapidos 

Flexanimis  fidibus  fluviorum  sistere  cursus; 
Flectere  saxa  potes. 

Grecia  Meonio  quantum  debebat  Homero 
Mantua  Virgilio 

Tantum  Skeltoni  iam  se  debere  fatetur 
Terra  Britanna  suo. 

Primus  in  hanc  Latio  deduxit  ab  orbe  Camoenas, 
Primus  hie  edocuit 

Exculte  pureque  loqui.  Te  principe  Skelton 
Anglia  nil  metuat 

Velcum  Romanis  versu  certare  poetis. 

Vive  valeque  diu. 


io.  In  Castigationes  Vincentii  contra  Malleoli 

CASTIGATORIS  DEPRAVATIONES. 

This  unpublished  poem  compares  the  excellent  editorial  and  proof¬ 
reading  werk  done  by  Augustine  Vincent  Caminade  with  the  poor 
work,  corrupting  the  text,  done  by  a  certain  “Little  Hammer.” 
Vincent  was  a  pupil  of  Erasmus  in  1500;  in  that  year  preparing  the 
Adagia  for  the  press  of  John  Philippi  at  Paris.  Allen,  i,  p.  305,  and 
epp.  13 1,  136,  156.  It  is  difficult  to  conjecture  wTho  was  the 
“Malleolus.”  No  proper  name  among  those  known  in  Erasmus’s 
writings  can  be  exactly  so  translated.  Possibly  the  man  intended 
was  Batt,  a  friend  with  whom  Erasmus  was  in  correspondence  in 
1500,  and  whose  name  might  be  translated  as  Malleolus. 


APPENDIX 


455 


Plus  sibi  quam  Varo1  volui  Tucrique2  licere 
In  musam  sumit  turba  prophana  meam. 

Hie  lacerat  mutilatque;  hie  pannos  assuit  ostro; 

Sordidior  [et]  mendis  pagina  nulla  vacat. 

Vel  nuper  quanta  horrebam  rubigine!  Scabro 
Malleolo  vexor  dum  miser  atque  premor. 

Hie  sordes  mihi  dum  male  sedulus  excutit  auxit, 
Dumque  agitat  veteres  addidit  ipse  novas. 

Reddidit  ereptum  Vincenti  lima  nitorem, 

Ornavit  variis  insuper  indicibus. 

Vivat  ut  usque  meus  vindex  vincentius  opto; 

Flagret  malleolus  Malleus  ille  malis! 

11.  Ad  Gaguinem.  LB.  i,  1218. 

12.  CONTESTATIO  SALVATORIS  AD  HOMINEM  SUA  CULPA 
PEREUNTEM.  CaRMINIS  FUTURI  RUDIMENTA. 

This  is  a  first  draft  of  the  poem  later  published  in  LB.,  v,  1319. 
As  the  printed  form  was  much  changed,  however,  the  original  may¬ 
be  reproduced  here. 

Quin  mihi  sunt  uni,  si  quae  bona  terra  polusque 
Habet,  quid  hoc  dementiae  est 
Ut  malis  homo  falsa  sequi  bona?  sed  malva  vera 
Me  rarus  aut  nemo  petat? 

Forma  capit  multos;  me  nil  formosius  usquam  est; 
Formam  hanc  amat  nemo  tamen. 


1  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  Varus  is  meant  here.  I  conjecture  that  the 
person  intended  is  Adolph  of  Veere,  to  whom  Erasmus  at  one  time  intended 
to  dedicate  the  Adagia.  On  him  see  Allen,  i,  p.  229. 

2  This  word  is  very  uncertain;  in  the  MS.,  of  which  I  have  a  photograph,  it 
looks  like  “Tucceque.”  I  believe  that  James  Tutor  is  meant,  Tucri  standing 
for  Tutori,  as  c  and  t  are  interchanged  often  in  this  MS.,  on  whom  see  Allen, 
ep.  133,  and  i,  p.  356.  Tutor  was  a  man  for  whom  Erasmus  had  great  respect. 
The  meaning  of  the  first  two  lines  would  then  be:  “The  unlearned  crowd 
arrogates  to  itself,  against  my  Muse,  more  than  I  should  be  willing  to  allow 
even  to  Veere  or  to  Tutor.” 


APPENDIX 


456 

Sum  clarissimus,  et  generosus  utroque  parente. 

Servire  nobis  quur  pudet? 

Dives  item  et  facilis  dare  multa  et  magna  rogatus, 
Rogari  amo;  nemo  rogat. 

Sumque  vocorque  patris  summi  sapiencia;  nemo 
Me  consulit  mortalium. 

Preceptor:  mihi  nemo  cupit  parere  neganti 
Eternitas,  nec  expetor 

Sum  via  quae  sola  caeli  itur  ad  astra,  tamen  me 
Terit  viator  infrequens. 

Auctor  quum  ego  sim  vitae  unicus,  ipsaque  vita 
Quur  sordet  mortalibus? 

Veraci  credit  nemo,  fidit  mihi  nemo, 

Quum  sit  nihil  fidelius. 

Sum  placabilis  ac  misereri  pronus,  et  ad  nos 
Vix  confugit  quisquam  miser. 

Denique  justus  ego  vindexque  severus  iniqui, 

Nostri  metus  vix  ullum  habet. 

Proinde  mei  desertor  homo;  socordia  si  te 
Adducet  in  mortem  tua. 

Praeteritum  nihil  est.  In  me  ne  rejici  culpam; 
Malorum  es  ipse  auctor  tibi. 

13.  In  dive  Anne  laudem  Rithmi  iambici. 

LB.,  v,  1325.  The  last  18  lines  are  omitted  in  the  MS. 

14.  Ad  Skeltonem  carmen  extemporale. 

The  first  three  lines  of  no.  9  above. 

15.  Epigramma  Ga[guinx]. 

The  above  poems  were  all  by  Erasmus.  In  addition  to  them  there 
is  one  by  Gaguin,  which  is  not  found  in  his  published  works.  It  is  on 
folio  5b  of  the  MS.,  between  no.  7  and  no.  8,  above.  See  ante ,  pp. 
29  f.  The  subject  is  Gaguin’s  welcome  to  Faustus  Andrelinus  and 
Erasmus  at  a  dinner  given  by  himself. 

Faustus  ades  fauste  spectatus  Appoline  vates 
Nec  minus  advenias  gratus,  Herasme,  comes. 


APPENDIX 


457 


Non  vos  accipiam  pleno  cratere  bibaces; 

Vatibus  apponi  parcior  esca  solet. 

Quamquam  equidem  mensa  dignos  meliore  Gaguinus 
Estimat  et  divum  promeruisse  dapes. 

Haud  epulas  tentum,  quantum  spectetis  amici, 
Pectus  et  humane  nimium  amicitiae, 

TEdes  fortunae,  tenuis  cum  veste  supellex 
Cor  animus  vestris  usibus  ecce  patent! 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


AS  it  would  be  impossible  to  exhibit  here  the  titles 
of  all  the  books  worked  into  this  study,  reference 
is  made  to  the  notes,  where  the  literature  is  cited  in  full. 
For  works  often  cited  by  abbreviations  I  refer  to  the  list 
at  the  beginning  of  this  book,  on  page  xiv.  As  a  very 
full  bibliography  of  the  works  published  prior  to  1893 
exists  in  the  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana ,  Liste  Sommaire , 
3d  series,  1893,  only  the  recent  literature,  since  1893, 
is  here  represented.  Other  bibliographies  may  be  found 
in  G.  Wolf:  Quellenkunde  der  deutschen  Reformations- 
geschichtey  1915,  Band  I,  pp.  345-376,  in  the  various 
volumes  of  P.  S.  Allen’s  edition  of  the  Opus  Epistolarum , 
and  in  Luther  s  Correspondence ,  translated  and  edited 
by  Preserved  Smith  and  C.  M.  Jacobs,  ii,  1918,  pp.  542  fF. 

Allen,  P.  S.:  Opus  Epistolarum  Des.  Erasmi  Roterodami.  4  vols.  1906  ff. 

Allen,  P.  S.:  The  Age  of  Erasmus.  1914. 

Allen,  Mrs.  P.  S.:  The  Praise  of  Folly ,  written  by  Erasmus  1509,  translated  by 
J.  Wilson,  1668,  edited,  1913. 

Andersen,  V.:  Tider  og  Typer  af  danskaands  Historie.  2  vols.  1907  ff. 
Arbenz,  E.,  und  H.  Wartmann:  Vadianische  Briefs ammlung.  7  parts  and  6 
supplements,  18901913. 

Becher,  R.:  Die  Ansichten  des  D.  Erasmus  uber  die  Erziehung  und  den  ersten 
Unterricht  der  Kinder.  1890. 

Bibliotheca  Belgica,  publiee  par  F.  Vander  Haeghen,  R.  Vanden  Berghe  et  T.  J. 
I.  Arnold,  1897  ff.  Contains  elaborate  bibliographical  information  on  the 
works  of  Erasmus,  as  yet  on  the  Adagia,  Admonitio,  Annotationes,  Anti- 
barbari,  Antwort,  Apologise,  Apophthegmata,  Colloquia,  Enchiridion, 
Moriae  Encomium,  and  Ratio  verae  theologiae. 

Bie,  P.  J.  de,  and  J.  Loosjes:  Biographisch  Woordenboek  van  Protestantsche 
Godgeleerden  in  Nederland.  1920  ff. 

Bludau,  A.:  Die  beiden  ersten  Erasmus-Ausgaben  des  Neuen  Testaments  und 
ihre  Gegner.  1902. 

Bonilla,  A.,  y  San  Martin:  “Erasmo  en  Espana,”  Revue  Hispanique,  xvii, 

1907,  379-548. 

Bonilla,  A.,  y  San  Martin:  Luis  Fives  y  la  filosofia  del  renacimiento.  1903. 
Brockwell,  M.  W.:  Erasmus,  Humanist  and  Painter.  1918. 

461 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


462 

Bruns,  Ivo:  “Erasmus  als  Satiriker,”  Vortrage  und  Aufsdtze ,  1905,  413-436 

Burckhardt-Biedermann,  T.:  “Die  Erneuerung  der  Universitat  zu  Basel/ 
Beitrage  zur  vaterlandischen  Geschichte ,  1896,  iv,  401  ff. 

Burckhardt-Biedermann,  T.:  Bonifacius  Amerbach  und  die  Reformation.  1894. 

Burgdorf,  J.:  Johann  Lange  (Rostock  Dissertation).  1911. 

Burger,  0.:  Erasmus  von  Rotterdam  und  der  Spanier  Fives  (Munich  Dis¬ 
sertation).  1914. 

Buschbell,  G.:  Reformation  und  Inquisition  in  Italien  um  die  Mitte  des  XVI. 
J dhrhundert.  1910. 

Bywater,  I.:  The  Erasmian  Pronunciation  of  Greek  and  Its  Precursors.  1908. 

Caird,  J.:  University  Addresses.  1898. 

Cambridge  Modern  History.  Vol.  i,  The  Renaissance ,  1902.  Vol.  ii,  The 
Reformation ,  1904. 

Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature ,  ed.  A.  W.  Ward,  A.  R.  W'alker.  Vol. 
iii,  The  Renaissance.  1909. 

Chamberlain,  A.  B.:  Hans  Holbein  the  younger.  2  vols.  1913. 

Clemen,  0.:  Handschriftenproben  aus  der  Reformationszeit.  1911. 

Clerval,  A.:  Registre  des  Proces-Ferbaux  de  la  Faculte  de  Theologie  a  de  Paris. 
I9I7- 

Copley,  E.  F.  H.:  Erasmus.  1903. 

Crozals:  “  L’Eloge  de  la  Folie ,  sa  place  dans  V oeuvre  d’Erasme .”  Universite  de 
Grenoble,  Annales,  xvii,  1905,  pp.  159-191. 

Delisle,  F.:  “La  Faculte  de  theologie  a  Paris/’  Notices  et  Extraits  des  MSS.  de 
la  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  xxxvi,  1899,  pp.  325  ff. 

Emerton,  E.:  Erasmus.  1900. 

Emerton,  E.:  “The  Chronology  of  the  Erasmus  Letters,”  American  Historical 
Association ,  Annual  Report  for  1901.  (1902),  I.  173-186. 

Enthoven,  L.  K.:  Brief e  an  Desiderius  Erasmus.  1906. 

Enthoven,  L.  K. :  “Ueber  Druck  und  Vertrieb  der  Erasmischen  Werke,” 
Neue  Jahrbucher  fur  das  klassische  Altertum,  tAc.  1911. 

Enthoven,  L.  K.:  “Uber  die  Institutio  principis  Christiani  des  Erasmus,” 
Ibid.  1909. 

Enthoven,  L.  K.:  “Erasmus  Weltbiirger  oder  Patriot?”  Ibid.  1912. 

Erasmus:  The  Complaint  of  Peace.  Open  Court  Pub.  Co.  1917. 

Erasmus:  A  book  called  in  Latin  Enchiridion  militis  Christiani.  1905. 

Erasmus:  Roterodamus  pleasantly  representing  several  superstitious  levities 
that  were  crept  into  the  Church  of  Rome  in  his  days  .  .  .  with  seven  more 
dialogues  and.  a  life  of  Erasmus  by  Thomas  Brown.  English  translation  by 
H.  M.,  Gent,  1671.1 

Ernst,  H.:  “Die  Frommigkeit  des  Erasmus,”  Theologische  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1919,  46  ff. 

Faulkner,  J.  A.:  Erasmus  the  Scholar.  1907. 

Febvre,  L.:  “Un  Secretaire  d’Erasme:  Gilbert  Cousin  et  la  Reforme  en 
Franche-Comte.”  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  I'histoire  du  protestantisme 
fran^ais,  Ivi,  1907,  pp.  97  ff. 

Fleischlin,  B.:  Schweizerische  Re formations  geschichte.  2  vols.  1908. 

1  This  and  a  few  other  works,  apparently  not  included  in  the  Bibliotheca 

Erasmiana,  are  inserted  in  this  bibliography,  though  of  date  prior  to  1893. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  463 

Forstemann,  J.,  und  0.  Gunther:  Brief e  an  Desiderius  Erasmus  von  Rotterdam. 
1904. 

Francke,  Kuno:  “Erasmus  als  Denker  und  Kiinstler,”  Internationale  Monat- 
schrift ,  vi,  1911-12,  269-291. 

Froude,  J.  A.:  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Erasmus.  1894. 

Gasquet,  F.  A.:  The  Eve  of  the  Reformation.  New  edition.  1900. 

Gess,  F.:  Akten  und  Brief e  zur  Kirchenpolitik  H.  Georgs  von  Sachsen.  2  vols. 
1905-17. 

Godet,  M.:  La  Congregation  de  Montaigu.  1912. 

Gossart,  E.:  “Un  livre  d’Erasme  (liber  de  sarcienda  ecclesise  concordia) 
reprouve  par  l’Universite  de  Louvain,”  Bulletin  de  V Academie  Royale  de 
Belgique ,  Class e  des  Letters.  1902,  pp.  438  ff. 

Haarhans,  J.  R.:  “Die  Bildnisse  des  Erasmus  von  Rotterdam,”  Zeitschrift  fur 
Bildende  Kunst,  N.  F.  x,  1898-99,  pp.  44-66. 

Hartfelder,  K.:  Melanchthoniana  Pcedogogica.  1892. 

Hashagen,  J.:  “Erasmus  und  die  Clevischen  Kirchenordnungen,”  Festgabe 
fur  Bezold,  1921,  pp.  181-220. 

Hes,  W.:  Ambrosius  Holbein.  1911. 

Hermelink,  H.:  Die  religibsen  Reformbestrebungen  der  deutschen  Humanisten. 

1906. 

Herzog,  J.  J.:  Realencyklopadie  fur  Protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche. 

3e  Auflage  hg.  von  A.  Hauck,  24  vols.  1896-1913. 

Heubi,  W.:  Francois  I  et  le  Mouvement  Intellectuel  en  France.  1913. 

Heusler,  A.:  Geschichte  der  Stadt  Basel.  1918. 

Hofer,  J.  M.:  Die  Stellung  des  Des.  Erasmus  und  des  J.  L.  Fives  zur  Pddegogik 
des  Quintilian.  (Erlangen  Dissertation.)  1910. 

Hopfl,  H.:  “Kardinal  Wilhelm  Sirlets  Annotationes  zum  Neuen  Testament, 
eine  Verteidigung  der  Vulgata  gegen  Valla  und  Erasmus.”  Biblische 
Studien ,  xiii,  no.  2.  1908. 

Humbert,  A.:  Les  Origines  de  la  Theologie  moderne.  1911. 

Humbertclaude:  Erasme  et  Luther ,  leur  polemique  sur  le  libre  arbitre.  1909. 
Hutton,  W.  H.:  Sir  Thomas  More.  1900. 

Imbart  de  la  Tour,  P.:  Les  Origines  de  la  Reforme ,  vol.  iii.  1913. 

Imbart  de  la  Tour,  P.:  “Erasme,”  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes ,  May  15,  1913, 
PP-  364-398- 

Jongh,  H.  de:  L’ancienne  Faculte  de  Theologie  a  Louvain.  1911. 

Kalkoff,  P.:  Die  V ermitilungspolitik  des  Erasmus  und  sein  Anteil  an  den 
Flugschriften  der  ersten  Reformationszeit.  1903. 

Kalkoff,  P.:  Die  Anfange  der  Ge genre formation  in  den  Niederlanden.  2  vols. 
1903-04. 

Kalkoff,  P.:  Erasmus ,  Luther ,  und  Friedrich  der  Weise.  1919. 

Kalkoff,  P.:  Ulrich  von  Hutten  und  die  Reformation.  1920. 

Kalkoff,  P.:  W.  Capito  im  Dienste  des  Erzbischof  Albrecht  von  Mainz.  1908. 
Kan,  I.  B.:  'M.opiag  Ey/co )fuov.  1898. 

Kawerau,  G.:  Die  Versuche  Melanchthon  zur  katholischen  Kirche  zuriickzu- 
fiihren,  1902. 

Kayser,  F.:  Ausgewahlte  padagogische  Schriften  des  D.  Erasmus.  1896. 
Keussen,  H.:  Die  Matrikel  der  Universitdt  K oln,  vol.  ii.  1919. 

Kloss,  W.:  “The  Place  of  Erasmus  in  the  History  of  Philosophy,”  The  Monist, 

1907,  pp.  84-101. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


464 

Kneisel,  Dr.:  Beitrage  aus  Erasmus ’  Colloquien  fur  die  Kulturgeschichte  des 
16  J ahrhunderts.  1897. 

Kohler,  W.:  Desiderius  Erasmus:  Ein  Lebensbild  in  Ausziigen  aus  seinen 
Werken.  1919. 

Konig,  E.:  “Erasmus  und  Luther,”  Historiscb.es  Jahrbuch,  xli,  1921,  pp.  52  IF. 

Lauchert,  F.:  Die  Italienischen  literarischen  Gegner  Luthers.  1912. 

Lefranc,  A.:  “L’CEuvre  de  Lefevre  d’Etaples  et  d’Erasme,”  Revue  des  cours  et 
des  conferences ,  xix.  1911. 

Lezius,  F.:  Zur  Characteristik  des  religiosen  Standpunkts  des  Erasmus.  1895. 

Lilly,  W.  S.:  Renaissance  Types.  1901. 

Lindeboom,  J. :  Erasmus ,  onderzoek  naar  zijne  theologie  en  godsdientsig  gemoed- 
bestaan.  1909. 

Lindeboom,  J.:  Het  Bijbelsch  Humanisme  in  Nederland.  1913. 

Lupton,  J.  H.:  A  Life  of  John  Colet.  1887. 

Luther,  M.:  Werke ,  Kritische  Gesammtausgabe,  von  Knaake  und  Andern. 
50  vols.  1883  fF. 

Luther,  Dr.  Martin:  Briefzvechsel ,  hg.  von  E.  L.  Enders ,  forgesetzt  von  K. 

Kazverau,  zveitergefiihrt  von  P.  Flemming.  17  vols,  1884-1920.  (I  have  also 
seen  part  of  the  proofs  of  the  eighteenth  volume,  kindly  sent  me  by  Prof. 
Paul  Flemming.) 

Mackail,  J.  W.:  Erasmus  against  War.  1907. 

Mayer,  H.:  “Erasmus  in  seinen  Beziehungen  zur  Universitat  Freiburg,” 
Alemannia,  N.  F.  viii,  1907,  pp.  287  FT. 

Menendez  y  Pelayo,  D.  M.:  Origines  de  la  Novela,  tome  iv.  1915. 

Mestwerdt,  P. :  Die  Anfange  des  Erasmus.  1917. 

Meyer,  A.:  Etude  critique  sur  les  relations  d’Erasme  et  de  Luther.  1909. 

Miaskowski,  C.  von:  “Listy  Polakow  do  Bonifacego  Amerbacha  1527-49” 
(Letters  of  Poles  to  B.  Amerbach).  Roczniki  towarzystwa  przyjaciol  Poz- 
ndnskiego,  44,  1917,  23-59. 

Miaskowski,  C.  von:  “Erasmiana,”  Jahrbuch  fur  Philosophic,  Paderborn , 
vols.  xiv,  xv.  1900-01. 

Miaskowski,  C.  von:  Die  Korrespondenz  des  Erasmus  mit  Polen.  1901. 

Migne:  Patrologia  Latina.  Vol.  xlvii,  1877,  cols.  197-570.  “  Animadversiones 
in  omnia  S.  Augustini  Opera.” 

MofFett,  Edna  V.:  Gilbert  Cousin.  (Cornell  dissertation,  1907;  unpublished, 
kindly  loaned  me  by  the  author.) 

Moreau-Nelaton,  E.:  “Erasme  chez  Catherine  de  Medicis  a  Chantilly,” 
Gazette  des  Beau-Arts,  ser.  3,  vol.  xxxvii,  1907,  pp.  481  fF. 

Murray,  R.  H.:  Erasmus  and  Luther:  their  attitude  towards  Toleration.  1920. 

Nichols,  F.  M.:  The  Epistles  of  Erasmus.  3  vols.  1901-18. 

Nolhac,  P.  de:  Erasme  en  ltalie.  1898. 

Norcross,  G.:  “Erasmus  the  Prince  of  Humanists,”  American  Historical 
Association  Report.  1898. 

Oechsli,  W.:  Quellenbuch  zur  Schweizergeschichte.  1910. 

Paquier,  J.:  Jerome  Aleandre.  1900. 

Paquier,  J.:  Lettres  familieres  de  Jerome  Aleandre.  1909. 

Pijper,  F.:  Erasmus  en  de  N ederlandsch  Reformation.  1907. 

Rembert,  K.:  Die  “Wiedertaufer”  im  Herzogthum,  Jiilich.  1899. 

Renaudet,  A.:  “Lrasme,”  Revue  Historique,  vols.  cxi,  cxii.  1912-13. 

Renaudet,  A.:  Prereforme  et  Humanisme  a  Paris.  1916. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  465 

Renouard,  P.:  Bibliographic  des  impressions  et  des  oeuvres  de  Josse  Bade  As - 
censius.  3  vols.  1908. 

Reichling,  D.:  Ausgewahlte  pedagogische  Schriften  des  D.  Erasmus.  1896. 

Reitsma,  J.:  Geschiedenis  van  de  Hervorming  en  de  Hervormde  Kerk.  3d  ed. 
door  L.  A.  Langerraad  und  F.  Reitsma.  1913. 

Rhijn,  Mvan:  Studien  over  Luther  s  rechtvaardingingsleer.  Met  en  nawoord 
over  nieuwere  Erasmus-waardeering.  1921. 

Richter,  M.:  Desiderius  Erasmus  und  seine  Stellung  zu  Luther.  1907. 

Roersch,  A.:  “Quarante-six  lettres  inedits  d’Erasme.”  Melanges  offerts  a 
M.  E.  Picot ,  i,  1913,  1  ff. 

Sandys,  J.  E.:  A  History  of  Classical  Scholarship.  Vol.  iii.  1908. 

Savage,  H.  J.:  “The  First  Visit  of  Erasmus  to  England,”  Paper  read  at 
meeting  of  Modern  Language  Association.  December,  1920. 

Schiess,  T.:  Briefwechsel  der  Briider  Ambrosius  und  Thomas  Blaurer.  3  vols. 
1908-12. 

Schroder,  A.:  Der  moderne  Mensch  in  Erasmus.  1919. 

Schulze,  M.:  Calvins  J enseits-Christentum  im  Verhdltnis  zu  den  religiosen 
Schriften  des  Erasmus.  1902. 

Scott,  I.:  Ciceronianus,  a  dialogue  on  the  best  style  of  speaking,  by  Erasmus, 
with  an  introduction  by  P.  Monroe.  1908. 

Searle,  W.  G.:  Grace  Book  T,  containing  the  records  of  the  University  of 
Cambridge,  1501-42.  1908. 

Sheppard,  J.  T.:  Richard  Croke ,  a  Sixteenth  Century  Don.  1919. 

Smith,  H.  G.:  “The  Triumph  of  Erasmus  in  Modern  Protestantism,”  Hibbert 
Journal ,  iii,  1905,  pp.  64-82. 

Smith,  Preserved:  Life  and  Letters  of  Martin  Luther.  1914. 

Smith,  Preserved:  Luther s  Correspondence  and  other  contemporary  Letters , 
vol.  i,  1913;  vol.  ii,  in  collaboration  with  C.  M.  Jacobs.  1918. 

Smith,  Preserved:  The  Age  of  the  Reformation.  1920. 

Smith,  Preserved:  “Some  Drawings  attributed  to  Holbein,”  Art  in  America , 
February,  1917. 

Smith,  W.  F.:  Rabelais  et  firasme.  1908. 

Spahn,  M.:  J.  Cochlaeus.  1898. 

Spitzner,  J.:  Beitrag  zur  Kritik  der  Unterrichts-  und  Erziehungslehre  des  D. 
Erasmus.  1893. 

Tatham:  “Erasmus  in  Italy,”  English  Historical  Review ,  x,  1895,  642. 

Thuasne,  L.:  Etudes  sur  Rabelais.  1904. 

Thuasne,  L.:  “La  lettre  de  Rabelais  a  £rasme,”  Revue  des  Bibliotheques,  xv, 
I9°5>  PP-  200  if. 

Thudichum,  F.:  “Erasmus  von  Rotterdam:  Ein  Wort  der  Wiirdigung  weder 
seine  Verkleinerer,”  Monatschrift  der  Comenius-Gesellschaft,  xviii,  1910,  pp. 
132  IF. 

Togel,  H.:  Die  pddagogische  Anschauungen  des  Erasmus  in  ihrer  psycholo - 
gischen  Begriindung.  1 896. 

Troeltsch,  E.:  Die  Kultur  der  Gegenwart:  Geschichte  der  Christlichen  Religion. 
1909. 

Troeltsch,  E.:  Protestantism  and  Progress.  1912.  Translation  of  Die  Be- 
deutung  des  Protestantismus  fiir  die  Entstehung  der  modernen  Welt.  1906. 

Veth,  J.,  und  S.  Muller:  A.  Diirers  N iederlandische  Reise.  2  vols.  1918. 


f 


466  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Vischer,  E.:  Die  Lehrstuhle  und  der  Unterricht  an  der  theol.  Fakultat  Basels. 
1910. 

Vocht,  H.  de:  De  Invloed  van  Erasmus  op  de  Engels che  Tooneelliteratuur  der 
XVIe.  en  XVII e.  Eeuzven.  1908. 

Vocht,  H.,  de:  “Chaucer  and  Erasmus,”  Englische  Studien ,  Band  41.  1910. 

Vocht,  H.,  de:  “The  Most  Recent  Contributions  to  Erasmus’s  Corre¬ 
spondence,”  Ibid. 

Walter,  J.,  von:  De  Libero  Arbitrio  Aiarpt /?#  per  D.  Erasmum  Rot.  1910. 

Walter,  J.,  von:  “Die  neueste  Beurteilung  des  Erasmus,”  Jahresbericht  der 
Schlesischen  Gesellschaft  fiir  vaterlandische  Kultur.  1911,  Band  V. 

Watson,  F.:  “Erasmus  at  Louvain,”  Hibbert  Journal .  1918. 

Watson,  F.:  Luis  Fives.  1922. 

Weiss,  N.:  “Louis  de  Berquin,”  Bulletin  de  la  Societe  de  VHistoire  du  Protes- 
tantisme  fran^ais,  1918,  pp.  162  ff. 

Weiss,  N.:  “G.  Farel,  &c,”  ibid,  1920,  1 15  ff*. 

Whitney,  J.  P.:  “Erasmus,”  English  Historical  Review ,  1920,  1  If. 

Wierzbowski,  T.:  Materialy  do  dziejow  Pismiennactiva  Polskiego ,  i,  1900. 

Wiescher,  E.:  Die  Reformation  in  Basel.  1917. 

Wilkinson,  M.:  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam.  1921. 

Willburger:  Die  Konstanzer  Bischofe  Hugo  von  Landenberg ,  Balthasar  Merklin , 
und  Johann  von  Lupfen  (1496-1537)  und  die  Glaubesspaltung.  1918. 

Woodward,  W.  H.:  Erasmus  Concerning  the  Aim  and  Method  of  Education. 
I9°4' 

Zickendraht,  K.:  Die  Streit  zwischen  Erasmus  und  Luther  uber  die  Willens- 
freiheit.  1909. 

Zwinglis  Werke ,  hg.  von  E.  Egli,  Finsler  und  W.  Kohler,  as  yet  5  vols,  1904  ff. 

Zwingli  zum  Geddchtnis  1519-1919,  Zurich,  1919. 


ADDENDA  ET  CORRIGENDA. 


Page  289,  note  1.  Hroswitha  found  the  plot  of  her 
drama  “ Phaphnutius  and  Thais”  in  an  older  legend, 
possibly  dating  back  to  the  fifth  century.  See  the 
Bollandists’  Acta  Sanctorum  for  Oct.  8,  iv,  223  ff.  But 
the  parallels  between  Erasmus’s  Colloquy  and  Hros¬ 
witha  seem  to  show  that  he  borrowed  from  her. 

Page  433.  Karl  Pearson’s  opinion  of  Erasmus  and  the 
Reformation  seems  to  be  partly  dependent  on  that  of 
Wieland,  as  reported  in  the  Diary  of  Henry  Crabb 
Robinson ,  ed.  Sadler,  3  vols.  1869,  i,  109. 

Appendix  III.  In  the  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations 
(Allen,  i,  p.  3)  Erasmus  says  that  he  had  written  every 
sort  of  poem,  and  had  left  some  unpublished.  Among 
his  poems  he  mentions  as  a  very  early  one  the  sapphic 
to  Michael  the  Archangel,  which  he  wrote  at  the  request 
of  an  official  in  a  church  dedicated  to  Michael — the 
legend  of  Raphael  as  “set  over  all  the  diseases  and 
wounds  of  the  children  of  men,”  goes  back  to  the  Book 
of  Enoch,  xl,  9. 


INDEX 


Adams,  G.  B.,  429. 

Addison,  J.,  323. 

Adrian  VI,  Pope, 
origin  of  name,  5. 
founds  University  of  Louvain,  25, 
5  of. 

approves  New  Testament,  174. 
against  Luther,  225,  326. 
and  Erasmus,  238,  327,  363. 
Agricola,  R.,  n,  13,  54,  366. 
Agrippa,  H.  C.,  41 1. 

Aix-la-Chapelle,  234. 

Alard,  155. 

Aldo,  see  Manuzio. 

Aldridge,  R.,  66,  73. 

Aleander,  J. 

meets  Erasmus,  io8f. 

and  Erasmus,  209,  237L,  252,  333, 

413- 

predicts  Reformation,  212. 
and  Charles  V,  229,  231. 
attacks  heretics,  23 if,,  349. 
and  Luther,  245f.,  340. 
denounces  Erasmus,  25off.,  3 1 3 f., 
3  26fF. 

and  Carpi,  399. 

Alfeld,  A.,  181. 

Alkmaar,  156. 

Allen,  P.  S.,  ii,  43  8f. 

Alvarez,  J.,  226. 

Amerbach,  B.,  140,  153 f.,  192,  218, 
249,  26of.,  265,  28 if.,  332,  383, 
.385,  391. 

Amiel,  H.,  323,  435. 

Ammonius,  A.,  67b,  76b,  204. 
Amsdorf,  N.  von,  365E 
Anabaptists,  281,  301,  324,  383,  430. 
Andrelinus,  F.,  28f.,  52,  60,  73,  453 f. 
Anghierra,  P.  M.  d’,  203. 

Anne  Boleyn,  Queen  of  England, 
284,  416,  419. 

Antwerp,  148,  246,  248. 

Aquinas,  T.,  21,  96,  192,  197,  226, 
25 3 >  277,  321,  337L 
Aretino,  P.,  118. 

Aristotle,  197,  247,  305. 
d’Armagnac,  G.,  41  iff.,  447ff. 


Arminius,  J.,  432. 

Arnold,  R.,  61. 

Art,  34. 

Ascham,  R.,  188,  316. 

Augsburg,  217,  224. 

Diet  of,  36off. 

Augustine,  19,  163,  170,  173,  181, 
183,  189,  190,  2 75,  337,  339,  352. 
Augustinian  Canons,  14,  25,  106. 

Bacon,  F.,  46. 

Bade,  J.,  1 19,  258. 

Baden,  381. 

Barbier,  P.,  249,  330. 

Barclay,  A.,  119. 

Basle,  129,  I52ff.,  163,  205,  379,  384. 
joins  Swiss  Confederacy,  138. 
home  of  Erasmus,  1388*.,  257-285, 
392,  419b 

center  of  humanism,  1 3 8fF. 
University  of,  138. 

Council  of,  163. 

Reformation,  376,  386,  388f. 

Batt,  J.,  451. 

Bayle,  P.,  436. 

Beard,  C.,  432. 

Beatus  Rhenanus,  I37f.,  146,  204, 
2i8f.,  223,  261,  263,  287,  339, 
384^,  422. 

Becket,  Church  of  St.  Thomas,  7off, 
91. 

Beda,  N.,  25f.,  180,  271F,  274F,  312, 
410. 

Bedwell,  60. 

Bembo,  P.,  Cardinal,  no,  331. 
Bentley,  R.,  189. 

Ber,  L.,  384,  387^ 

Bere,  R.,  162. 

Bergen,  Anthony  of,  46,  49,  213,  323. 
Bergen,  Henry  of,  Bishop  of  Cam- 
brai,  18,  25b,  30. 

Berquin,  L.  de,  58,  27iff. 

Bertulph,  H.,  413. 

Besamjon,  265,  405. 

Beza,  T.,  1 66,  202,  304,  425. 

Bible,  20,  24,  55. 
edited  by  Erasmus,  159-188. 


469 


INDEX 


470 

Bible 

texts  and  manuscripts,  163!?. 
Vulgate,  i59ff.,  174b,  i8of.,  184^ 
German,  164,  166,  184. 

Codex  Vatic  anus,  165. 
Complutensian  Polyglot,  165,  180. 
translations,  167P,  183,  186. 
and  humanism,  173. 

Spanish,  186. 

Biel,  G.,  277. 

Blount,  C.,  407. 

Blount,  W.,  Lord  Mountjoy,  30,  38, 
59,  61,  66,  73,  1 16,  204,  262, 
2778". 

Boece,  H.,  24. 

Boerio,  J.,  102. 
sons  of,  102. 

Bohemian  Brethren,  242. 

Bohmer,  H.,  426. 

Boleyn,  T.,  Viscount  Rochford,  284b 
Bologna,  iosff. 

University  of,  105. 

Bombasius,  P.,  106,  116,  165,  174, 
250,  412^415,  447ff. 

Borgia,  Lucretia,  114. 

Botzheim,  J.,  263 f. 

Bramante,  H2f. 

Brandenburg,  Albert  of,  130. 

Brant,  S.,  Ship  of  Fools,  119,  136G 
Brassicanus,  J.  A.,  234. 

Brethren  of  the  Common  Life,  9, 
I2f.,  24L,  S3,  75- 
Brewer,  J.  S.,  429. 

Bricot,  T.,  21. 

Brie,  G.  de,  93. 

Brocario,  W.  de,  162. 

Brown,  Sir  T.,  119. 

Browning,  R.,  316. 

Bruno,  G.,  438. 

Brunsfels,  O.,  335. 

Brussels,  148. 

Bucer,  M.,  212,  339,  362,  3 66,  394. 
Buda,  M.,  379. 

Bude,  Wm.,  ns,  I7 9,  I99,  204,  270, 
273 ,  3 IT- 

Bugenhagen,  J.,  353. 

Burke,  E.,  92,  313. 

Burton,  R.,  41. 

Busch,  H.,  332L 
Busleiden,  J.,  155,  303. 

Caesarius,  134. 

Cajetan,  T.  de  Vio,  Cardinal,  217, 
226,  384. 

Calcagnini,  C.,  nof.,  350. 

Calvin,  J.,  54,  21 1,  372,  425,  431. 
Calvinism,  372. 

Cambridge,  65L,  73. 


Camerarius,  J.,  344,  354,  428. 
Caminade,  A.  V.,  286L,  45 if. 
Campeggio,  L.,  222,  239,  267,  328, 
361E,  368. 

Campester,  L.,  299. 

Cantiuncula,  C.,  271. 

Capito,  W.  F. 
and  New  Testament,  181. 
and  Reformation,  2i6ff.,  223,  233, 

325. 

for  mediation,  238f.,  252,  254ff., 
343- 

and  Erasmus,  331,  353,  362. 
and  Free  Will,  340,  350. 

Caraffa,  J.  P.,  see  Paul  IV. 

Caraffa,  O.,  Cardinal,  118. 

Carlstadt,  A.,  Bodenstein  of,  18 1, 

331,  34°.  347,  35?»  379- 
Carpi,  Albert  P10,  Prince  of,  398. 
Cassander,  G.,  432. 

Castellio,  S.,  428. 

Catharine  of  Aragon,  Queen  of  Eng¬ 
land,  279ff. 

Catharine  Parr,  Queen  of  England, 
187,  276. 

Catharine  de’  Medici,  Queen  of 
France,  201. 

Catharinus,  A.,  399. 

Catholic  Church 
Index,  166,  422. 

and  Erasmus,  240,  322,  334,  387, 
402,  42 if. 

and  Luther,  240,  322. 
excommunication,  293. 
Renaissance  and  Reformation,  321. 
and  free  will,  337. 
and  Reformation,  390. 

Cellini,  B.,  322. 

Chaloner,  Sir  T.,  125. 

Charles  V,  Emperor,  393. 

and  Erasmus,  147,  156,  231,  325, 

356,  4°S- 
and  More,  15 1. 
dedication  to,  186,  196. 
and  Aleander,  229. 
and  Henry  VIII,  230. 
and  Diet  of  Worms,  245. 
and  Edict  of  Worms,  248. 
foreign  wars  of,  270. 
and  Reformation,  364. 
and  Colloquies,  400. 

Charnock,  R.,  63,  94. 

C holer,  J.,  275. 

Christianity,  if.,  15,  17,  88f.,  97,  123, 
136. 

Christian  II,  King  of  Denmark, 
Sweden  and  Norway,  248,  270. 
Chrysostom,  St.  J.,  189. 


INDEX  471 


Classics,  14,  30,  36ff.,  46ff.,  189, 
i92ff.,  195,  203,  305f.,  3o8fF. 
Clement  VII,  Pope,  106,  114,  262, 
342f.,  349,  396,  399. 

Cleves,  John,  Duke  of,  258,  395. 
Cochlaeus,  J.,  283,  349. 

Colet,  J.,  50,  54,  67,  101. 
at  Canterbury,  7off. 
and  Erasmus,  78,  93,  96f.,  99, 
i6if.,  173,  186,  204F.,  216,  247. 
biography  by  Erasmus,  94!?., 
97ff. 

and  Luther,  100. 
and  Reuchlin,  133. 
lectures  on  St.  Paul,  160. 
on  New  Testament,  175. 
and  Wyclif,  21 1. 
and  Theses ,  2i5f. 
and  Latin,  317. 

Cologne,  234,  239. 

University  of,  224,  227,  232,  33 1. 
Columbus,  F.,  35,  156. 

Constance,  263fF. 

Council  of,  224. 

Coornheert,  D.,  432. 

Cop,  W.,  36L 

Copernicus,  N.,  101,  no,  320, 

337- 

Corvinus,  A.,  365. 

Cousin,  G.,  406,  417. 

Cranach,  L.,  151. 

Cranmer,  T.,  259. 

Crafft,  A.,  157. 

Croke,  R.,  123. 

Cromwell,  T.,  259. 

Curtius,  P.,  402. 

Cyprian,  St.,  190. 

Dante,  197. 

Deventer,  7ff.,  22,  401. 

Diderot,  D.,  436. 

Dierx,  V.,  396L 
Dods,  M.,  430. 

Dolet,  £.,  126,  314P,  412. 
Dominicans,  1 3 1  f . ,  178,  180,  223, 
228,  267,  326,  331,  384,  390. 
Dorp,  M.,  126,  180. 

Dublin,  Trinity  College,  166. 
Dubois,  P.,  198. 

Duns  Scotus,  i52f.,  192,  277,  321. 

Scotists,  2 iff. 

Diirer,  A.,  18. 

Knight,  Death  and  the  Devil,  58. 

arch  of  triumph,  89. 

and  Italy,  101. 

at  Basle,  138. 

and  Pirckheimer,  146. 

drawings  of  Erasmus,  i5of. 


and  Reformation,  246. 
praises  Luther,  247. 
leaves  Netherlands,  248. 

Eck,  J.,  173,  181,  217,  224,  229,  327, 
340,  361P,  384. 

Eckstein,  U.,  374. 

Edmund,  Prince,  61. 

Egmond,  N.,  228,  288,  297,  396. 
Eisenach,  247. 

Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  187. 
Elyot,  T.,  201. 

Emser,  J.,  58,  3 56E 
England,  36,  59ff,  63,  70,  74,  78,  116, 
130,  175,  177. 

Enzmas,  F.  de,  186. 

Eoban  Hess,  157,  206,  217,  223,  377, 

.  394;  407. 

Epimenides,  22. 

Eppendorf,  H.  von,  263,  383!?. 
Erasmus,  D. 
career 

family,  sf.,  13. 

illegitimate  birth,  6ff.,  64,  74f., 
77-  . 

education,  8ff. 
enters  monastic  life,  13. 
as  artist,  iji. 

secretary  to  Henry  of  Bergen, 

I8. 

enters  University  of  Paris,  20. 
lectures,  24. 
anecdote,  26f. 
and  Anne  of  Veere,  31. 
travels,  31,  35P,  48P,  59,  73, 
io2ff,  io7ff.,  115,  I36ff., 

141IF.,  239,  263 ff,  405. 
lectures  at  Cambridge,  65^,  73. 
income,  30,  64,  67,  69b,  73 E, 
2S7ff,  342,  40 if. 
at  Louvain,  5of.,  148,  176,  219, 
239,246,252. 
in  Venice,  I07ff,  313. 
in  Germany,  136E. 
in  England,  36,  59-100,  116,  130. 
at  Basle,  I38ff.,  257-285. 
in  Netherlands,  130,  141,  148. 
degrees  and  honors,  103,  146b 
portraits,  I48ff. 

as  editor  and  critic,  i89ff,  195. 
and  Peasant’s  War,  201,  269b 
and  Reformation,  209-256,  320 

37x>  ?78>  439-  . 

and  Swiss  Reformation,  372-403. 
will,  26 iff. 

attacked  by  both  parties,  398. 
attacked  in  Spain,  400. 
at  Freiburg,  404-419. 


INDEX 


472 

Erasmus,  career 

correspondence,  208,  409^ 
death,  4i9f. 
health  and  habits,  28,  82,  19, 
27iff. 

doctrines,  opinions  and  character, 
undogmatic  Christianity,  i,  159. 
Latin  and  Greek,  16,  i6off. 
relation  of  culture  to  religion, 
I7>  358. 

character,  28,  3 5 f.,  439ff. 
and  classics,  14,  30,  36ff.,  46!?., 
189,  I92ff.,  195,  203,  30SL, 
3o8fF. 

Biblical  criticism,  1591?. 
and  pacificism,  i98fF.,  324. 
and  Republicanism,  199!?. 
and  Catholics,  227,  387,  40off. 
attacks  foibles,  293ff. 
attacks  pedantry,  3o8fF. 
and  education,  303fF. 
as  writer,  17,  3i6ff. 
and  superstition,  322b 
and  Free  Will,  340. 
as  peacemaker,  36ofF. 
doctrine  of  eucharist,  379ff. 
liberalism,  395E. 
writings 

De  Contemptu  Mundi ,  14. 

The  Hovel  Where  Jesus  Was 
Born ,  24. 

Antibarb  ari,  17,  156. 

The  Conflict  Between  Thalia  and 
Barbarity ,  17. 

Moria,  17,  23,  76,  88,  92,  ii7ff., 
129,  134,  149,  152,  157,  204, 
213,  258,  308,  319,  323,  41 1, 
414,  422,  435. 

Colloquia ,  28,  80,  82b,  102,  108, 
1 14,  1 3 5 f. ,  141,  I57>  266,  274, 
286-301,  319,  323,  385,  392, 
41 1,  414,  422,  435,  437. 
Adagia ,  36,  74,  108,  129,  147, 
152,  i57f->  201  f.,  213,  258, 
313,  385,  407 f.,  422. 
Enchiridion  Militis  Christiani, 
54,  ssfF.,  74,  120,  124,  129, 
146,  149,  157E,  i68f.,  213, 
216,  336,  400. 

dedications,  32,  38,  74,  H7f., 
186,  192,  202,  221,  225,  271, 
279,  282,  284f.,  287,  308,  312, 
327,  364,  403,  407ff.,  418. 
Copia ,  74,  157,  302. 

New  Testament ,  33,  74,  115,  149, 
159-188,  214. 

lnstitutio  Principis  Christiani, 

147b,  196E 


De  Constructions ,  157. 

The  Method  of  Theology ,  173, 
225.  . 

Apologia  Against  James  Lato- 
mus,  176. 

Paraphrases,  33,  149,  153,  l86flF., 
27 if-,  342,  .422. 

political  writings,  I97f. 

Epistolce,  iii,  75,  157,  202-208, 
213,  256,  273,  383,  390,  393, 
422. 

Julius  Excluded  from  Heaven, 

213. 

Axioms,  236. 

On  Ending  the  Lutheran  Afair, 
249f. 

Advice  of  One  Seeking  the  Peace 
of  the  Church,  251. 

Confession,  271. 

Exposition  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer, 

272. 

Complaint  of  Peace,  272. 

Institution  of  Christian  Matri¬ 
mony,  279,  422. 

The  Christian  Widow,  282,  403, 
409. 

Ennaratio  Triplex  in  Psalmum 
XXII,  285. 

Preparation  for  Death,  285. 

Method  of  Study,  302. 

The  Distichs  of  Cato ,  302. 

de  Constructione,  306. 

Civility  for  Boys,  307. 

A  Devout  Treatise  Upon  the  Pater 
Noster,  307. 

Commentary  on  Prudentius * 

Hymn  to  the  Nativity,  308. 

Ciceronianus,  in,  309-316,  399. 

Orthodox  Liturgy,  326. 

A  Sponge,  334L 

Diatribe  on  the  Free  Will,  242, 

346ff.,  399>  426. 

Hyperaspistes,  3  5 6fF. ,  369. 

Book  on  Mending  the  Peace  of 
the  Church,  364,  399. 

Expostulation  of  Jesus  with  Man, 
372. 

Plan  or  Compendium  of  True 
Theology,  373. 

Admonition  Against  Falsehood 
and  Slander,  386. 

An  Answer  to  Some  Articles  of 
the  Spanish  Monks,  393. 

Apology  Against  the  Ravings  of 
Alberto  Pio,  2,99- 

Apothegms,  408. 

Catechism,  285,  409. 

Method  of  Preaching,  409. 


INDEX 


473 


Erasmus,  writings 

edits  Josephus ,  41  iff.,  447ff. 
Poems,  453ff. 

influence  and  relation  with  con¬ 
temporaries 

Hutten,  1 3 off.,  136,  173,  223, 
226f.,  233,  26c,  332ff,  368. 
Colet,  78,  93,  96f.,  99,  i6if.,  173, 
186,  204f.,  216,  247. 

More,  61,  66,  75,  78ff,  I48ff., 
204f.,  215,  228,  261,  278,  390, 
4I5ff. 

Reuchlin,  131ft.,  222,  225,  288, 
328,  398. 

Pirckheimer,  127,  I45f.,  344, 
357.  3  68, ,3  80. 

Lefevre  d’Etaples,  I78ff.,  273f. 
Melanchthon,  209,  220,  227, 
308,  335.  34i.  350.  355.  360- 
37i.  375.  379f.,  424.  428. 
Luther,  i82f.,  205,  209-256,  320- 

37i.. 387.  398,  4H.  424- 
Frederic,  Elector  of  Saxony, 
22 if.,  232,  234ff.,  326. 

Francis  I,  179,  27off. 

Sorbonne,  27iff. 

Aleander,  io8f.,  209,  23  7f., 

25 off.,  3 1 3 f-.  326ff,  333,  413. 
CEcolampadius,  209ff,  229,  344, 
376,  380,  382,  391  f.,  395.  425- 
Henry  VIII,  230,  276-285,  343, 
417. 

Fisher,  65ff,  133,  175,  261,  340, 
409,  4i6f. 

Eppendorf,  3841^. 

Farel,  377. 

Jud,  381. 

Pellican,  328,  3  8 1  f. 

Zwingli,  209ff,  251,  340,  342, 
368,  374,  382,  395,  425. 
Capito,  331,  353,  362. 
judged  by  posterity 
early  Catholics,  42 if. 

Pope,  423. 

Lacordaire,  423. 

Pastor,  L.  von,  423. 

Acton,  Lord,  424. 
early  Protestants,  424ff. 

Milton,  425. 

Knight,  426. 

Jortin,  426. 

Walpole,  426. 

Harnack,  426. 

Bohmer,  426. 

Kohler,  427. 

Lindsay,  427.. 
liberal  Christians,  428. 

Brewer,  429. 


White,  A.  D.,  429. 

Adams,  G.  B.,  429. 

Pattison,  429. 

Dods,  430. 

Hermelink,  430. 

Anabaptists,  430. 

Franck,  431. 

Dutch  liberals,  43  if. 

Beard,  432. 

Schlottmann,  433. 

Troeltsch,  434. 

Wernle,  434. 

Muller,  434. 

Schroder,  434. 

Rabelais,  434. 

Montaigne,  434. 

Des  Periers,  434. 

Amiel,  435. 

Froude,  435. 

Jovius,  435. 

Jonson,  B.,  435. 

Bayle,  P.,  436. 

Voltaire,  436. 

Diderot,  436. 

Sainte-Beuve,  436. 

Francke,  Kuno,  436. 

Imbart  de  la  Tour,  436. 

Lea,  437. 

Scaliger,  438. 

Bruno,  G.,  438. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,  438. 
Reade,  438. 

Allen,  P.  S.,  438A 
Erfurt,  157,  177,  217. 

Estienne,  H.,  166. 

Eucharist,  doctrine  of  the,  378ff. 
Everard,  N.,  241,  269. 

Exsurge  Domine,  229,  238,  251. 

Faber,  J.,  237,  342,  384,  404,  416, 
425- 

Farel,  W.,  3 76K 

Ferdinand,  King  of  the  Romans,  186, 
231,  270,  276,  396. 

Ferrara,  no. 

Renee,  Duchess  of,  428. 

Filonardo,  E.,  327b 
Fisher,  J.,  65ff,  133,  154,  175,  221, 
261,  278,  340,  382,  409,  4i6f. 
Forster,  M.,  359. 

Florence,  104^,  112. 

France,  A.,  319. 

France 
inns,  142A 

and  New  Testament,  178. 
monarchomachs,  202. 

Francis  I,  King  of  France,  179, 
27off. 


474  INDEX 


Franciscans,  267,  275. 

Franck,  S.,  431. 

Francke,  Kuno,  436. 

Frankfort  on  the  Main,  13 1. 
Freiburg  in  the  Breisgau,  181,  265P, 
349,  384,  404,  419. 

University  of,  383,  404L 
Froben,  J.,  43,  45,  88,  133,  I38ff., 
152b,  192,  2i7ff.,  257,  261,  268, 

28 7>  33 5>  346,  3SS»  377)  412, 

448  f. 

Froude,  J.  A.,  323,  435. 

Fugger  family,  337,  410. 

Fiissli,  H.,  374. 

Fust,  J.,  195. 

Gaguin,  R.,  28ff.,  37,  41,  456F 
Gardiner,  S.,  124. 

Garland,  J.,  10. 

Gattinara,  M.,  238,  246,  363,  396. 
Geldenhauer,  G.,  393 f. 

Gelenius,  S.,  316. 

Germaine  de  Foix,  Queen  of  Spain, 
239. 

Germans,  176,  322. 

Germany 

cities  and  poor  relief,  89. 
and  Reuchlin,  133. 
and  Erasmus,  136,  242,  315,  328, 
342f.,  398. 
inns,  I4if. 
proverbs,  40. 

and  New  Testament,  181. 
and  Reformation,  212,  215,  223. 
and  Luther,  331. 

Gesner,  C.,  46,  320. 

Gigli,  S.,  Bishop,  75ff. 

Gilles,  P.,  I48f.,  204,  246. 

Glapion,  J.,  232,  250P 
Glarean,  H.,  140,  179,  373 f. 

Goclen,  C.,  261. 

Gouda,  5,  13. 

Gourmont,  G.  de,  124. 

Grapheus,  C.,  246,  248,  331,  431. 
Gratius,  O.,  1 3 2fF. 

Greek,  30,  33,  46b,  70,  146,  160,  162, 
189,  3<02ff. 

classics,  36,  40,  193,  195. 

Greek  fathers,  193. 

Greenwich,  78. 

Grey,  T.,  27,  81. 

Grimani,  0.,  113,  133,  186,  204. 
Groot,  G.,  9,  13. 

Grotius,  H.,  201,  432. 

Grynaeus,  S.,  138,  282. 

Gryphius,  S.,  41 2f. 

Gutenberg,  J.,  107. 

Gylli,  P.,  413,  449. 


Hampton  Court,  153. 

Harnack,  A.,  426. 

Henckel,  J.,  362. 

Henry  VII,  King  of  England,  64, 102. 
Henry  VIII,  King  of  England,  66, 
hi,  178. 
as  prince,  61  f. 
painting  of,  90,  154. 
accession  to  throne,  1 16- 
letters  to,  204. 

and  Erasmus,  230,  276fL,  343,  417, 

.453- 

divorce  from  Catharine,  278-285. 
and  Luther,  276ff.,  357. 
and  Free  Will,  341,  349. 
and  Anne  of  Cleves,  396. 
tyranny,  4i5ff. 
and  More,  41 5F. 

Henry  of  Bergen,  Bishop  of  Cam- 
brai,  i8f.,  49. 

Herborn,  N.,  451. 

Hermann,  W.,  30,  49. 

Hermelink,  H.,  430. 

Herodotus,  195. 

’S  Hertogenbosch,  12. 

Hochstraten,  J.,  132,  135,  224,  331, 

333)  384- 

Holbein,  A.,  153. 

Holbein,  H.,  124,  13 8f.,  149,  152W. 
Holland,  5,  18. 

Hopfer,  J.,  15 1. 

Hotman,  F.,  202. 

Hroswitha,  286,  289. 

Hiibmaier,  B.,  383. 

Humanism 

Erasmus  apostle  of,  33. 
at  Strassburg,  136. 
at  Louvain,  154?. 
and  Bible,  173. 
and  France,  202. 
and  letter-writing,  202. 
and  Luther,  217. 
and  education,  308. 
and  Reformation,  324. 
and  Latin,  324. 
and  Christianity,  358. 

Hump,  H.,  228. 

Huss,  J.,  21 1,  224. 

Hutten,  U.  von 
and  Italy,  101. 
satire,  117. 
admires  Moria,  125. 

Nemo ,  222. 

and  Erasmus,  i3off.,  136,  173,  223, 
226f.,  233,  265,  332ff.,  368. 
and  Reuchiin,  132. 
and  Francis  von  Sickingen,  23 2f. 
attacks  Glapion,  250. 


INDEX  475 


Hutten 

and  Reformation,  325,  332ff. 
character,  332. 
and  Pellican,  341. 

An  Expostulation,  333,  335. 
death,  335. 

and  Zwingli,  372,  375. 

Imbart  de  la  Tour,  P.,  436. 
Inghirami,  114. 

Ingolstadt,  University  of,  147. 
Irenaeus,  189. 

Isabella,  Queen  of  Castile,  279. 
Italy,  104. 

living  conditions,  io8f. 
art,  109,  H2f. 
courage  of  Italians,  402L 

James  IV,  King  of  Scotland 
sons,  no. 

Jerome,  St.,  163, 173, 178,  183,  igoff., 
203,  387. 

Jesuits,  422. 

Jesus  Christ,  17,  54,  122,  137,  140, 
167,  184,  194,  223,  288,  308,  334, 
33.6. 

“philosophy  of,”  34,  52ff.,  I72f., 
191,  372,  441. 

John  the  Baptist,  210. 

John  the  Apostle,  191,  383. 

John  of  Ragusa,  Cardinal,  163. 
Johnson,  S.,  337. 

Jonson,  B.,  435. 

Jonas,  J.,  137,  207,  222,  224,  228, 
238,  247,  325,  344,  354,  359. 
Jortin,  J.,  426. 

Josephus,  447ff. 

Jovius,  P.,  435. 

Jud,  L.,  187,  366,  38of. 

Julius  II,  Pope,  64,  74,  I05f.,  ii2ff., 
1 19,  127. 

Kempis,  T.,  9,  21 1. 

Kessler,  J.,  425. 

Kohler,  W.,  427. 

Knight,  S.,  426. 

La  Boetie,  46,  202. 

Lacordaire,  J.,  423. 

Lambert,  F.,  353. 

Lang,  J.,  157,  209,  217,  223. 

Lang,  M.,  Archbishop,  225. 

Lascaris,  J.,  107,  303. 

Laski,  J.,  26of.,  345. 

Latin,  5P,  ioff.,  16,  70,  162,  189, 
302E,  3  i6f.,  324. 

classics,  13P,  30,  33,  36ff.,  47B, 
I93»  195. 

Latomus,  J.,  155,  176,  255. 


Lea,  H.  C.,  437* 

Lee,  E.,  176L,  400. 

Lefevre  d'Etaples,  J. 
and  Italy,  101. 

Quintuplex  Psalterium,  i6of. 
and  Erasmus,  I78ff.,  273b,  341. 
New  Testament,  185. 
and  Paraphrases,  188. 
and  Luther,  215. 
and  Francis  I,  270. 

Latin  style,  311. 

Leipzig 

University  of,  146P,  155,  224. 
debate,  221,  224,  340. 

Leo  X,  49,  65,  212. 

and  Erasmus,  75,  77B,  240,  252. 
and  Moria,  126. 
dedication  to,  174,  192,  218. 
letters,  204. 
and  Luther,  217. 
exsurge  Domine ,  229,  238. 
death,  326. 

Lindsay,  T.  M.,  427. 

Lipsius,  M.,  176,  196. 

Lombard,  P.,  20. 

London,  63,  65,  69,  74. 

Longueil,  C.  de,  179,  311. 

Louis  XII,  King  of  France,  104. 
Louis,  King  of  Hungary,  326. 
Louvain 

Erasmus  at,  5of.,  148,  176,  219, 
239,  246,  252,  383. 

University  of 
founded,  25. 
described,  5of.,  156. 
attacks  Erasmus,  126, 154f.,  396. 
conservative,  180. 
approves  Luther,  217. 
attacks  Luther,  222ff.,  227. 
Aleander  at,  23 if. 
and  Erasmus,  249,  274,  325,399. 
Loyola,  I.,  25b,  400,  440. 

Lucas  van  Leyden,  151. 

Lucian,  118,  193L,  300,  359. 
Ludovico  il  Moro,  103. 

Luther,  M.,  54, 56,  58,72,92, 101, 117. 
and  Peasants’  War,  201,  350,  383. 
and  Rome,  112. 
and  Bible,  161,  164,  166. 
and  catechism,  185. 
and  Augustine,  I9if. 
saying  of,  202. 

and  Erasmus,  i82f.,  205,  209-256, 
320-371,  387,  398,  414,  424,  451. 
and  writings  of  Erasmus,  46,  127b, 
188,  2I3ff. 

Reformation  and  Renaissance, 
209-256. 


476  INDEX 


Luther 

pamphlets,  217#. 
and  Melanchthon,  220. 
and  Frederic,  Elector  of  Saxony, 
221. 

and  Louvain,  227. 

Christian  Liberty ,  93. 
papal  bull,  229,  248. 
and  Faber,  237. 

Prelude  on  the  Babylonian  Cap¬ 
tivity  of  the  Church ,  240P,  276. 
virulence  of,  241. 

Diet  of  Worms,  245,  247. 
and  Henry  VIII,  276ff.,  357. 
and  polygamy,  282. 
and  Colloquia ,  295,  300. 
and  Latin,  317. 
and  toleration,  324. 
and  Adrian  VI,  225,  326ff. 
Tesseradecas ,  330,  345. 
and  Free  Will,  339P 
Resolutions,  339. 

Refutation  of  the  Bull ,  340. 
Commentaries  on  the  Psalms ,  345. 
Monastic  Vows,  349. 
marriage,  351. 

Bondage  of  the  Will,  35 if.,  354, 

368^ 

and  Zwingli,  373. 
and  Glarean,  373. 
doctrine  of  Eucharist,  378ff. 
and  Jud,  381. 

Lystrius,  G.,  124. 

Machiavelli,  N.,  39. 

The  Prince,  38,  196 
and  Florence,  104. 
and  Erasmus,  199. 
and  Roman  religion,  322. 
Maillard,  0.,  21. 

Mainz,  130. 

University  of,  130. 

Albert,  Elector  of,  219,  225,  238, 
254>  370. 

Major,  J.,  23,  25f.,  119. 

Maldonato,  358. 

Manetti,  G.,  160. 

Mantua 

Isabella  d’Este,  Marchioness  of, 
no,  160,  428. 

Manuzio,  Aldo, 4iff.,io7ff.,  195^,3 13* 
Marck,  E.  de  la,  Bishop,  224L 
Margaret  d’Angouleme,  Queen  of 
Navarre,  271,  275. 

Margaret,  Regent  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands,  396. 

Margaret  Tudor,  Queen  of  Scotland, 
61,  65P 


Maria,  Queen  of  Hungary,  362,  409. 

Marius,  A.,  388,  390. 

Marlian,  A.,  246. 

Marot,  C.,  301. 

Mary,  Mother  of  Jesus,  294. 

Mary  Tudor,  Queen  of  France,  61. 

Mary  Tudor,  Queen  of  England,  187, 
279,  407. 

Matsys,  Q.,  I48ff.,  15 1. 

Mauburn,  J.,  25. 

Maximilian  I,  Emperor 
and  Reuchlin,  132. 
and  Erasmus,  156. 
and  New  Testament,  181. 
residence,  404. 

Maximilian  of  Zevenbergen,  396P 

Melanchthon 

on  John  Major,  23. 
and  Peasants’  War,  89. 
and  Erasmus,  182,  209,  220,  227, 
308,  335,  341,  350,  355,  360-371, 

3 75>  379f->  424>  428. 
and  Lucian,  193. 
and  Luther,  220,  239,  325,  365. 
and  Greek,  304. 
and  Camerarius,  315. 
and  Free  Will,  338. 

Loci  Communes,  340. 
as  peace-maker,  344. 
and  Hyperaspistes,  359,  369. 
and  Catholics,  366$. 

Commentary  on  Romans,  369P 
Commonplaces,  370. 
and  Reformation,  394. 
and  More,  416. 

Michelangelo,  113,  337. 

Miltitz,  C.  von,  225. 

Milton,  J.,  7,  304,  308,  422,  425. 

Mirandola,  Pico  della,  54,  227,  310, 
39.8. 

Montaigne,  M.  de,  39,  46,  206. 
and  liberalism,  301. 
and  Erasmus,  434. 

Montaigu,  G.  de,  24. 

Montanus,  J.,  354. 

More,  J.,  408. 

More,  Sir  T. 

and  Erasmus,  61,  66,  75,  78ff., 
I48ff.,  204P,  215,  228,  261,  278, 
390,  41 5fF. 

described  by  Erasmus,  79P 
practical  jokes,  8of. 
iove  of  animals,  82. 
marriages,  84ff. 
family  life,  85!?. 

Utopia,  85,  87!?.,  148,  198. 
reactionary,  92P 
in  Europe,  93. 


INDEX 


477 


More,  Sir  T. 

dedication  of  Moria ,  117L 
portrait,  154. 

and  New  Testament,  I75ff.,  181. 

attacks  Tyndale,  i85f. 

and  Lucian,  193. 

and  Grynaeus,  283. 

anecdote,  288. 

and  Dolet,  314. 

and  Latin,  317 

and  miracles,  322. 

and  Henry  VIII,  41 5L 

death,  4i6ff. 

character,  441. 

Mosellanus,  155,  193,  222. 

Moses,  210. 

Mountjoy,  see  Blount. 

Muller,  K.,  434. 

Musurus,  M.,  107. 

Mutian,  C.,  209. 

Myconius,  0.,  152. 

Nachtigall,  O.,  404. 

Neacademia,  107. 

Netherlands 
commerce,  4. 

and  Erasmus,  25E,  47,  130,  141, 
148,  331,  431. 

Reformation,  239,  246,  248. 
Aleander  in,  251. 
hatred  of  monks,  397. 

Nicholas  V,  Pope,  113,  160. 
Nicholas,  Cardinal  of  Cusa,  9,  12. 

De  Pace  Fidei ,  9 if. 

Nietzsche,  F.,  321. 

Nuremberg,  394. 

Occam,  William  of,  197,  227. 
CEcolampadius,  J.,  127,  138. 
and  Bible,  165. 
and  New  Testament,  181. 
and  Erasmus,  209!?.,  229,  344,  376, 
380,  382,  39H.,  395,  425. 
pamphlets,  218. 
and  Grynaeus,  282. 
and  Reformation,  325,  376,  379, 
388ff.,  394. 

and  Luther,  342,  346. 
at  Basle,  376E 
and  Farel,  377. 

doctrine  of  Eucharist,  3 79T,  382. 
marriage,  391. 
death,  395. 

Orange,  William,  Prince  of,  432. 
Oxford,  157. 

University  of,  63. 

Pace,  R.,  hi,  176L,  242,  247. 

Pack,  0.  von,  360. 


Padua,  no. 

Papal  Court 
levity  of,  114. 

Paracelsus,  T.,  268. 

Paris,  19b,  26,  123,  150,  161. 
Louvre,  153. 

University  of,  20,  180,  422. 
Montaigu,  College  of,  23  f.,  26. 
Navarre,  College  of,  312. 
morals  of  students,  27. 
philosophy,  2 if. 
hostility  of,  27iff.,  298,  300. 
Determination  on  the  Familiar  Col¬ 
loquies  of  Erasmus ,  298. 
and  CEcolampadius,  389. 

Pasquin,  n8f.,  122. 

Pastor,  L.  von,  423. 

Pattison,  M.,  429. 

Paul,  St.,  191,  203,  336,  375,  401. 
Paul  III,  Pope,  401. 

Paul  IV,  Pope,  1 16. 

Pellican,  C.,  218,  328,  341,  381L 
Periers,  B.  des,  434. 

Petit,  W.,  271. 

Pfefferkorn,  J.,  13  zf. 

Pflug,  J.,  363L,  366,  428. 

Philip,  Duke  of  Burgundy,  19,  51, 
_  3J5>  393 * 

Pins,  J.  de,  3 1 1,  4i2ff.,  447ff. 
Pirckheimer,  W. 

and  Erasmus,  127,  344,  357,  368, 
.  380. 

life  and  character,  145L 
and  Lucian,  193. 
excommunicated,  253. 

Erasmus’s  will,  262. 
and  Reformation,  325. 

Piso,  J.,  in,  203. 

Pius  II,  Pope,  15. 

Plato,  88f.,  197,  336. 

Platz,  L.,  157. 

Plimpton,  G.  A.,  195. 

Poggio,  1 1 8. 

Pope,  A.,  206,  423. 

Prierias,  S.,  226,  328,  384. 

Printing,  194C 
Priscillian,  165. 

Probst,  J.,  246,  248,  331. 

Pucci,  L.,  448. 

Rabelais,  F.,  25,  101,  117,  119,  125, 
193^,  440- 

and  Erasmus,  413,  434,  436. 
and  liberalism,  301. 
and  Scaliger,  314. 

Radewyn,  F.,  75. 

Raphael  Sanzi,  113. 

Reade,  C.,  438* 


INDEX 


478 

Reformation 

and  Renaissance,  iff.,  209ff.,  32off. 
378,  424. 

foreshadowed,  72. 
defined,  32if. 
and  Mainz,  130. 
and  Basle,  138. 

economic  and  intellectual  changes, 
194,  320. 

and  monarchy,  199. 
and  Erasmus,  209-256,  320-371, 
377f->  439- 

and  Luther,  244b,  320-371,  377f„ 
439- 

and  Diirer,  246. 
in  Netherlands,  246,  431. 
hostility  of  Sorbonne,  27iff. 
and  Colloquia,  301. 
comedy  of,  362. 
in  Switzerland,  372-395. 
opinions  of,  430,  439. 

Renaissance 
interpreted,  iff. 
defined,  1,  321b 

and  Reformation,  iff.,  209ff., 
32off,  378,  424. 

Christianized  by  Erasmus,  34,  3 58. 

architecture,  103. 

and  Florence,  104. 

festive  art,  105. 

and  Germany,  129. 

and  monarchy,  199. 

and  Luther,  209ff. 

and  Erasmus,  305,  32off. 

Reuchlin,  J. 

heresy  trial,  132b 
Erasmus  defends,  I32ff.,  288. 
Letters  of  Famous  Men,  134. 
and  Louvain,  135. 
scholarship,  160,  163,  304. 
and  Erasmus,  222,  225,  238,  398. 
and  Luther,  227. 
and  Reformation,  363. 

Rhine,  129b 

Riario,  R.,  Cardinal,  113,  115,  133. 
Rome,  101,  106,  1 1  if.,  1 15,  212,  224, 
239b 

Roper,  M.,  307. 

Rotterdam,  7. 

Rubeanus,  C.,  134. 

Rufinus,  P.,  163. 

Rufus,  M.,  157. 

Sadoletus,  401. 

St.  Clara,  convent,  73. 

Sapidus,  J.,  137. 

Satzger,  C.,  329. 

Savonarola,  G.,  104. 


Saxony 

Albertine 

Albert,  Duke  of,  146L,  236b, 
277,  329b 

George,  Duke  of,  146b,  236b, 
277>  329f->  34i,  348b,  3SSf-» 
35.8ff-»  384^ 

Ernestine 

Frederic,  Elector  of,  221b,  232, 
234ff-»  326. 

John,  Elector  of,  355,  360. 
Scaliger,  J.,  300,  311b,  313E,  413, 
438. 


Schlettstadt,  137. 

Schlottmann,  433. 

Schroder,  A.,  434. 

Science,  35. 

Scott,  W.,  124. 

Semler,  J.,  428. 

Sepulveda,  J.  de,  399. 

Servatius,  Rogerus,  14,  74. 

Servetus,  M.,  320,  324. 

Shakespeare,  W.,  46,  124. 

Shaw,  B.,  316. 

Sickingen,  F.  von,  232,  254,  332,  335. 
Sigisrnund  I,  King  of  Poland,  275. 
Sintheim,  j.,  1 1,  13. 

Sixtin,  J.,  63. 

Sixtus  IV,  Pope,  11. 

Skelton,  J.,  62,  1 1 8,  450b 
Slecta,  J.,  21 1. 

Spain,  180. 

and  Erasmus,  400,  422. 

Spalatin,  G.,  58,  202,  214b,  217, 
22 if.,  225,  235b,  255b,  330. 
Stadion,  C.  von,  Bishop  of  Basle, 


Standish,  H.,  177. 

Standonck,  J.,  24b,  50,  52. 
Steyn,  13,  17,  26,  49,  74. 

Storch,  A.,  390,  410. 

Strassburg,  116,  136b,  216,  384. 
Stunica,  J.  de,  180. 

Sturm,  J.,  136. 

Sutor,  P.,  180. 


Tartaret,  J.,  21. 

Tauler,  J.,  21 1. 

Taverner,  R.,  46. 

Ter  Beek,  E.,  9,  12. 
Tewksbury,  }.,  93. 

Titian,  321. 

Tischendorf,  167. 

Trent,  Council  of,  159,  421. 

and  Vulgate,  174. 
Troeltsch,  E.,  434. 

Tunstall,  C.,  299,  349. 
Turin,  102b 


1 


V 


479 


INDEX 


Tyndale,  W.,  58,  66,  93,  155,  185, 
416,  425. 

Udall,  N.,  408. 

Vadian,  338. 

Valdes,  A.,  396. 

Valla,  L.,  52,  56,  440. 

Elegancies  of  Latin,  12. 
influence  on  Erasmus,  1 5E,  i6if., 

309. 

Notes  on  the  New  Testament ,  15, 
i6off. 

De  Professione  Religiosorum ,  15. 
and  Luther,  227. 
and  Free  Will,  338. 

Van  Dyke,  154. 

Van  Eycks,  56. 

Veere 

Adolph,  Prince  of,  3  if.,  38,  454. 
Anne,  Lady  of,  3 if.,  49. 

Venice,  io/ff.,  112. 

Vergerio,  399. 

Vergil,  Polydore,  39,  269. 

Vespucci,  A.,  88. 

Vitrier,  J.,  49b,  54,  247. 

Vives,  L.,  89,  279b,  308. 

Voltaire,  15,  125,  193,  435L 
Volz,  P.,  216. 

Walpole,  H.,  426. 

Walsingham,  72. 

Warham,  W.,  Archbishop,  43,  68, 
73,  81,  1 16,  153L,  192,  249,  259, 
261,  418. 

Wernle,  434. 

White,  A.  D.,  429. 

Wicel,  G.,  363E,  422,  428. 
Wilamowitz-MoellendorfF,  U.  von, 
438.. 

Wimpheling,  J.,  125,  136, 


Winckel,  P.,  12. 

Windesheim,  25. 

Wittenberg,  150,  205,  227,  234,  241, 
3.79-  . 

University  of,  205,  212,  214,  224, 

33of.,  334»  336,  338,  35°>  355- 
Wolsey,  T.,  Cardinal,  74,  175,  222, 

27?f„  346>-349>  415- 
Worms,  Diet  of,  108,  238,  245,  247, 
250,  340. 

Edict  of,  248. 

Wiirttemberg 

Ulrich,  Duke  of,  13 1. 

Wyclif,  J. 

and  Reformation,  21 1. 
and  Free  Will,  347. 

Wyclifites,  327. 

Ximines,  Cardinal,  162,  180. 

Zasius,  U.,  181,  249,  265b,  349,  404, 
422. 

Zevenbergen,  6. 

Zuichem,  V.  van,  401,  410. 

Zurich,  374,  388,  390. 

Zwichau,  379. 

Zwilling,  G.,  330. 

Zwingli,  U. 

annotates  New  Testament,  181. 
and  Erasmus,  209ff.,  231,  340,  342, 
368,  374,  382,  395,  425. 
and  Grynaeus,  283. 
and  Mariolatry,  294. 
and  Hutten,  334,  375. 
character,  372. 
influenced  by  Erasmus,  3 72E 
and  Luther,  373. 
and  Glarean,  374. 
and  Swiss  Reformation,  372-395. 
doctrine  of  Eucharist,  382. 
death,  395. 

Zwinglians,  3 88f. 


THE  END 


DATE  DUE 

an  m  E 

i 

artr-.qr, 

F'  iv'Jw 

1@^p8a*aw« 

JUN  0  < 

2016 

GAYLORD 

f«iA<TEO  IN  U.S- A. 

BW2076  .S65  c.2 

Erasmus:  a  study  of  his  life,  ideals  and 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1  1012  00016  6365 


